Westbury engagement report final 200615

Engaging residents in the future of the Westbury estate: report

of engagement with residents

December 2014 to May 2015

June 19th 2015

2

Engaging residents in the future of the Westbury estate

In 2014 Social Life was commissioned by Metropolitan Workshop to carry out a programme of engagement to support a feasibly study on the Westbury estate in Lambeth. The project was commissioned by Lambeth Council.

The brief was to carry out four stages of work:

• initial scoping: setting up a group of residents to act as a steering group or sounding board • benchmarking: exploring data available from census and neighbourhood statistics, as well as

Social Life’s social sustainability data; and speaking to residents about their experience of living on the estate

• dialogue: to discuss design options with residents • final exhibition: to test residents’ responses to the design options that were developed.

This report describes the activities carried out by Social Life, working closely with Metropolitan Workshop, between December 2014 and May 2015, and the views of residents that emerged from the different events and discussions.

We are grateful to the residents of the Westbury estate who gave their time and energy to this process.

1 Activities

3


1 Overview Social Life began their work in December 2014, organising an initial drop in session for residents to find out more about the process. This was repeated in early January.

An information sheet distributed at this event set out this starting point for the feasibility study. The leaflet stated:

• Lambeth want to build 1,000 new homes at Council rent levels across the borough: there is a possibility that they will be able to use money from developments in Vauxhall and Waterloo to pay for some of these new homes at Council rent levels to be built on the Westbury estate.

• Lambeth will also see if it is possible to build more homes for private rent or sale on the estate but only if this means that more new homes at Council rents can be built, by using the money from the private sales or rents to pay for more homes at Council rents.

• There will be no overall loss of homes at Council rent levels on the estate, the intention is to build more of these.

• Lambeth are not going to sell off the land that the estate is built on, and any new housing will not be controlled by a private developer – Lambeth will stay in charge.

• Any new homes at council rents would be prioritised for existing residents, through a “local lettings policy”, so tenants who are overcrowded or in need of a different home will be rehoused first. No Council tenants will be forced off the estate. If they have to move away temporarily while they are waiting for a new home, they will have a right to return.

• Leaseholders are an important part of the community and Lambeth will work hard to find ways that they can all stay on the estate.

• There is no intention to demolish the towers. The only thing that could change this is if we find new information about the condition of the towers, at the moment we think it is in a sound state. We want to talk more with residents about the future of the low rise blocks.

• There are no plans for the redevelopment at the moment. We want to hear from residents about life on the estate, about what is good and what could be improved, before we start designing options.

MER

RY C

HRIS

TMAS

and

Hap

py N

ew Y

ear

MER

RY C

HRIS

TMAS

and

Hap

py N

ew Y

ear

M E R RY C H R I S T M ASand Happy New Year



WESTBURY ESTATE:

Looking Forward

We’ll have another session

on January 13th 2015.

In the next few months we’ll be

organising meetings and talking to

residents individually to hear from

everyone on the estate about their

needs, hopes, and concerns.We want

to hear from you about what you think.

Social Life & Metropolitan Workshop are working with Lambeth Council to

look at options for new homes at Council rent levels on the Westbury estate.

What do you think about living on the Westbury estate?

What would you like to see in the future?

Drop by and share your thoughts and meet the team for

a festive drink!

Who are we?Social Life is a small organisation

based in South London that aims

to put people at the heart of places.

For more information go to:

www.social-life.coMetropolitan Workshop are architects

and urban designers with a strong track

record of successful engagement with

residents in estate regeneration projects.

For more information got to:

www.metwork.co.uk

TUESDAY 16th DECEMBER, 4pm to 7pm

TRA rooms, Amesbury tower

MERRY C

HRISTM

ASan

d H

appy

New

Yea

r



MERRY CHRISTMAS

and Happy New Year





Find out more - Email: [email protected] or Tel: 0797 5738097

Icons by Freepik.com

www.facebook.com/WestburyEstate

4


During January and February Social Life spoke to residents to find out their perceptions of life on the estate. Residents were asked what it is like to live on the estate, what improvements they would like to see, and what their views were on the prospect of new housing on the estate. More information about this is in section 3.

The views shared by residents were presented in an exhibition at the end of February, along with a first set of scenarios for building new homes on the estate.

A second exhibition took place at the end of April to show a revised set of scenarios, refined to take account of residents’ feedback.

A steering group of residents was set up to allow residents to feed in their views about the process. The steering group met with representatives from Social Life, Metropolitan Workshop, and Lambeth Council. At these meetings updates were shared and discussed, and views taken. The steering group met five times, it was open to everyone living on the estate.

The estate was leafleted eight times and posters put up on the noticeboards in the towers and at the bottom of stairwells, and by the refuse bins. A facebook page - http://facebook.com/westburyestate - was also set up to communicate with residents. Residents were asked for email addresses, and by April Social Life had been given emails by 120 residents.

Overall, more than 145 households were engaged through different activities, out of a total of 242 homes on the estate. Table: numbers of residents attending events, by tenure

Event Total Tenants Leaseholders Unknown

Drop in 16/12 12 8 3 1

Drop in 13/01 10 8 2 0

Steering group 03/02 7 2 5 0


Exhibition 28/02 & 01/03 70 48 15 7


Drop in (Ilsley) 13/04 17 10 5 2

Drop in (tenants) 20/04 12 9 2 1


Exhibition 25/04 41 26 8 7

Drop in (Leaseholders) 27/04 20 4 11 5

Exhibition 25/04 41 26 8 7

Exhibition 28/04 21 11 4 6

5


Table: number of residents attending events, by block

Total households 18 18 28 18 82 80 80 160 242

Initial Engagement Alling-

ton Fovant Ilsley Welford

Low rise

Ames-bury

Durring-ton Towers Total

Total households engaged 10 9 14 9 42 23 16 39 81 Leaseholders 3 3 3 1 10 2 2 4 14 Tenants 6 5 10 8 29 19 13 32 61 Private tenants 2 0 1 0 3 3 0 3 6 Unknown 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 4 Total conversations 11 10 14 9 44 25 16 41 85


Exhibition 1 Alling-


Low rise

Ames-bury


Total households engaged 12 5 7 4 28 23 9 32 58 Leaseholders 2 2 3 2 9 3 3 6 15 Tenants 7 4 4 3 18 21 7 28 48 Private tenants 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Non-residents 2 Unknown 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 4


Exhibition 2 Alling-


Low rise

Ames-bury


Total households engaged 4 13 5 11 33 12 10 22 48 Leaseholders 1 5 0 3 9 1 1 2 11 Tenants 3 5 4 7 19 10 9 19 37 Private tenants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-residents 7 Unknown 0 3 1 1 5 1 0 1 6 No of feedback forms 61

NB: the numbers of residents attending events, by event, do not add up to the total numbers involved (145) because of the number of people who came to more than one event.

2 What is know about the estate Social Life audited existing services and assets in the area, and explored the data available that could help understand the estate and the lives of residents living there. The map of local services, amenities and assets is on the next page.

Map: local services, amenities and asset

6

7


Who lives on Westbury?

There are 242 homes on the estate, 80 each in Durrington and Amesbury Towers, and 82 in the low-rise blue blocks. There are 64 leaseholders and 178 homes council. An unknown number of leaseholders rent out their homes to private tenants.

The 2011 census gives data about the Westbury estate. This is now four years out of date but overall patterns are unlikely to have changed substantially. This shows that:

• residents of the Westbury estate are younger than the Lambeth average. There is a higher number of children and young people under 18, but fewer people in their 20s and 50s, and over 80 years old

• the proportions of people in work are broadly similar to the Lambeth average, although slightly fewer people work full time, and more people work part time

• 28 per cent of residents do not speak English as their main language (although they may be fluent in English, alongside their primary language). The main other languages are Portuguese, Spanish, and Filipino/Tagalog.

Social Life’s data suggests that residents of areas like the Westbury estate are likely to be concerned about safety, and to feel a lower level of belonging and trust in their neighbours than the national average. They are likely to be dissatisfied with their local area as a place to live. However, police data suggests that crime on the estate is relatively low and residents generally like living on the estate and feel comfortable with their neighbours.

Data from the 2011 census

Census data can be analysed by super output areas, rather than actual geography.

The footprint of the Westbury estate maps onto two output areas shown in the map below. The housing association development on the corner of St Rule St also falls into this area, it is not possible to remove it. These two output areas have been used to explore the demographics of the estate.

8


Source: https://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

Source for all graphs: census 2011 via www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0 Ec

onom

ical

ly a

ctiv

e

Econ

ocm

ially

inac

tive

Full t

ime

empl

oyee

Part

tim

e em

ploy

ee

Self

em

ploy

ed w

ith

empl

oyee

s

Self

em

ploy

ed

wit

hout

em

ploy

ees

Une

mpl

oyed

Stud

ent

Reti

red

Look

ing

afte

r ho

me

or f

amily

Long

ter

m s

ick/

disa

bled

Oth

er e

cono

mci

aly

acti

ve

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

Whi

te B

riti

sh

Whi

te Iri

sh

Oth

er w

hite

Mix

ed w

hite

/bl

ack

Mix

ed w

hite

/as

ian

Mix

ed o

ther

Asi

an

Ban

glad

eshi

Asi

an Ind

ian

Asi

an

Paki

stan

i

Chi

nese

Oth

er A

sian

Bla

ck A

fric

an

Bla

ck

Car

ribe

an

Bla

ck o

ther

Ara

b

Oth

er e

thni

c gr

oup

Ethnicity

Age

Economic

activity

0.0

20.0

40.0

0-11 12-18 19-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91+

% Westbury

% Lambeth

% London

Percent

Percent

Percent

9


Languages spoken

Table: first language of residents living on Westbury estate and surrounding area

Language Numbers %

English 412 71.7

Portuguese 46 8.0

Spanish 29 5.0

Tagalog/Filipino 13 2.3

French 11 1.9

Arabic 7 1.2

Amharic 6 1.0

Tigrinya 6 1.0

Bulgarian 5 0.9

Somali 5 0.9

Polish 4 0.7

Russian 4 0.7

Persian/Farsi 4 0.7

Akan 4 0.7

Italian 3 0.5

Dutch 3 0.5

Lithuanian 2 0.3

Bengali 2 0.3

Cantonese Chinese 2 0.3

Welsh/Cymraeg 1 0.2

Turkish 1 0.2

Urdu 1 0.2

All Other Chinese 1 0.2

Japanese 1 0.2

Other Nigerian language 1 0.2

Other West African language 1 0.2

All Usual Residents, age 3 and Over 575 100.0

10


Social sustainability benchmarking

Social sustainability benchmarking is a process Social Life have developed. It matches data about how people feel about the places they live to small local areas.

We do this by using two ways of categorising small local areas developed by ONS (the Office for National Statistics):

• IMD – Index of Multiple Deprivation – this was last updated in the last census 2011. This explains how deprived an area is considered to be across a number of different domains

• OAC – Output area classifications – which have been developed by ONS to understand how social attitudes relate to the places people live.

We then map data from large scale datasets held by the government and research councils – the Understanding Society Survey, Crime Survey England & Wales, Community Life survey, and Taking Part survey – to these small areas

This paints a picture of how residents of these areas are likely to feel about key questions.

For more information about this approach see www.social-life.uk

The diagram below shows how residents of neighbourhoods similar to the Westbury estate are likely to feed about key social sustainability indicators.

The turquoise line indicates the national average, the orange line indicates areas similar to Westbury. A positive score is higher than the national average, a negative number indicates lower than the national average.

This shows that residents living in places similar to Westbury are more likely than the national average to feel it is important to influence decisions in the local area, and to feel they can influence these decisions. However they are less likely than people in similar areas to feel safe, to rely on their neighbours, to feel they belong in their neighbourhood or to be satisfied with the local area as a place to live.

11


Predicated attitudes of residents living in areas comparable to the Westbury estate

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

Can influence decisions affecting

your local area

Feel is important to influence

decisions in your local area

Would be willing to work with others

to improve my neighbourhood

People pull together to improve the

neighbourhood

Crime in your local area compare to

the country as a whole

Crime in local area is lower than

country as a whole

Feel safe walking alone in this area

during the day

Friendships in my neighbourhood

mean a lot to me

Borrow things and exchange favours

with my neighbours

Regularly stop and talk with people

in my neighbourhood

Can go to someone in neighbourhood

for advice

People from different backgrounds

get on well together

Feel like I belong to this

neighbourhood

Plan to remain resident of the

neighbourhood for a number of years

Satisfaction with life overall

Satisfaction with local area as a

place to live

12


Police data

3 Conversations with residents

The first stage of Social Life’s work was to speak to residents to help understand the needs, hopes

and fears of residents about change on the Westbury estate. This included establishing what aspects

of the estate residents like or cherish, and what on the estate they feel needs to improve. We also

asked residents how they feel about the prospect of new housing on the estate, and if new houses

were to be built, where these houses might go.

Social Life employed a range of methods to reach out to various parts of the community living on the

Westbury estate. Through a combination of street interviews, door knocking, leafleting, drop-in

sessions, and the creation of a resident’s steering group, we spoke to a broad range of people to

understand what the main challenges and opportunities are within the estate.

13


Street Interviews: Social Life was present on the estate on different days, varying the location and time of day visited. Street interviews are a good way to speak to people as they walked through the estate and to reach people who were out and about, as well as specific groups such as parents bringing their kids home from school.

Drop-in sessions: Social Life hosted two drop in sessions on the estate for residents to come and hear about the project and to share their views.

Door knocking: Social life has leafleted and visited every house on the estate. This meant that we were able to reach some more vulnerable residents who would not otherwise attend drop-in sessions.

Interviews with other stakeholders: Social Life also conducted interviews with other key players in the community, some of which were identified through resident interviews. Interviewees included the Clapham Town Safer Neighbourhoods Team, local councillors, staff members at Heathbrook Primary School and Children’s Centre, the vicar at a local church, and Friends of Heathbrook Park. Lambeth Living staff responsible for estate maintenance and the concierges on the estate were also interviewed.

14


Between December 2014 and February 2015, Social Life spoke to 87 residents.

Table: one to one resident interviews in January and February

Allington Fovant Ilsley Welford Low rise Amesbury Durrington Towers Total

Total households engaged 10 9 14 9 42 23 16 39 81

Leaseholders 3 3 3 1 10 2 2 4 14

Tenants 6 5 10 8 29 19 13 32 61

Private tenants 2 0 1 0 3 3 0 3 6

Unknown 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 4

Total interviews 11 10 14 9 44 25 16 41 85

Total households on estate 18 18 28 18 82 80 80 160 242

Ethnicity of residents interviewed

White British: 29 (34%) • White Irish: 2 (2%) • Other white: 14 ( 16%) • Black British: 8 (2%) • Caribbean: 2 (2%) • African: 13 (15%)

• Other Black: 2 (2%) • White & Black African: 2 (2%) • Pakistani: 1 (1%) • Other Asian: 1 (1%) • Chinese: 1 (1%) • Latin American: 2 (2%)

• Other: 2 (2%)

15


Key Findings Top five “likes:”

• Quiet/calm • Feeling of safety • Heathbrook park & green spaces • Transport links • Location & wider area.

Top five “dislikes” or areas for improvement:

• Maintenance/standard of homes • Rubbish disposal services • ASB or drugs • Quality of open/public spaces • Playground facilities for younger children.

Attitudes to new homes on the estate

• Positive: 12 • Open to idea with some concerns/restrictions: 29 • Maybe, but with more concerns/restrictions: 19 • Completely opposed: 10

Main concerns raised

• becoming a big estate/crowding • fears about losing greenspace • fears over displacement of current resident • pressure on local facilities.

Potential places to build? Most common answers

• Ilsley Court • “there is no space”/not sure where • garages • concern about building on grass opposite station.

16


4 Exhibition 28th

February to 2nd

March

Residents were presented with findings of Social Life’s conversations; a summary of the “offer” to

residents from Lambeth and “scenarios” for possible development.

The exhibition boards from this are included as Appendix 2.

The overall message to residents was that new housebuilding would happen at scale, this could mean

200 to 300 new homes. The exhibition showed initial ideas that would be developed following

feedback, and that these were not to be seen as fixed options.

Some people gave considered views, while others found it difficult to respond as this was first time

specific options had been presented.

Metropolitan Workshop also ran two “walkabout” sessions so residents could show architects their

perspective on plans, and the architects could explain more about the different scenarios to

residents.

17


18


Feedback

Feedback from residents on ideas presented at this exhibition was gathered in a number of ways.

The Social Life team took notes from residents on feedback forms that allowed them to report their

thoughts against each design idea.

There was also an anonymous comments box, as well as a space to record general questions.

A comments box was left on the estate for 1 week after the end of the exhibition, for residents to

provide feedback.

Around 40 of the 80 people attending provided feedback. Many people found it difficult to imagine

what the scale of what was being proposed would mean in practice, or to visualise the plans as they

were presented on exhibition boards. Without more detailed information and drawings, some

residents found it difficult to imagine how old and new could sit side by side in the infill versions.

Because of this the feedback from this exhibition was considered more of a temperature check of the

direction of thinking around new development on the estate - rather than a representative view.

Exhibition 1

Alling-


Low

rise

Ames-

bury

Durring-

ton Towers Total

Total households

engaged 12 5 7 4 28 23 9 32 58

Leaseholders 2 2 3 2 9 3 3 6 15

Tenants 7 4 4 3 18 21 7 28 48


Non-residents 2

Unknown 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 4


Key Findings

Some residents were alarmed at scale of building, others more relaxed, or in favour of building more

social housing.

The three scenarios split opinion.

The biggest single issues raised were:

• don’t build on grass at front of estate (15 responses, mainly towers)

• concerns about height/more towers (10, mainly towers and low rise)

• priority for new housing for current residents (8, mainly tower tenants)

• dislikes idea of “closing off” estate from Wandsworth Rd (6)

• support better access through estate (5)

• concerns about safety if more residents (5)

• no back to back gardens (4)

• support for community centre (4) • retain character (3).

19


5 Drop ins for leaseholders and tenants

Social Life arranged drop in sessions for leaseholders and tenants to speak to Lambeth about their

individual circumstances, given the potential changes to their homes.

The tenants session was on 20th April – 12 people attended: nine tenants, two leaseholders and one

person of unknown tenure.

The leaseholders session was on 27th April – 20 people attended, four tenants, 11 leaseholders and

five people whose tenure was unknown.

6 Exhibition 25th

to 28th

April

The scale of development, and number of houses, emerged as a central concern from residents

following the first exhibition. The purpose of the second exhibition was to look at implications of

development on Westbury with a smaller or greater number of homes, and to invite feedback on how

many homes people would find acceptable.

Social Life gathered focused feedback on numbers, how residents felt about five updated scenarios

for development, and to comment on what features of the estate mattered most to them.

The exhibition boards from this are included as Appendix 3.

Attendance


Exhibition 1

Alling-


Low

rise

Ames-

bury

Durring

-ton Towers Total

Total households engaged 4 13 5 11 33 12 10 22 48

Leaseholders 1 5 0 3 9 1 1 2 11

Tenants 3 5 4 7 19 10 9 19 37


Non-residents 7

Unknown 0 3 1 1 5 1 0 1 6

Total attending exhibition 4 13 5 11 33 12 10 22 48

20


7 Feedback about options

Everyone attending the exhibition was given a feedback form, and the opportunity to fill it in at the

exhibition or bring it back on one of the three nights the following week that Social Life were on the

estate.

Feedback forms were distributed to all residents, along with a printout of the scenarios. Residents

were told they could:

• leave the completed forms with the concierges (who had agreed to let residents in do this)

• fill in the survey online

• contact Social Life to arrange for their form to be collected.

Four people filled in the feedback form online. 30 people returned forms through the boxes left with

the concierges. 42 people gave forms directly to Social Life at events (mainly in an anonymised box).

The numbers completing the survey mean that the overall results are meaningful, although differences

of a few percent either way should be considered as falling into the margin of error. The more that

responses are broken down by block or tenure, the less certainty there is about specific results,

especially when differences are small, although they can reveal broad trends.

Who completed the survey?

Table: who completed feedback forms

Number of

individuals

Number of

households

Total on

estate

Proportion

responding

Total

responses

82

Residents 77 71 242 29%

Non residents 5 unknown

Tenure

Tenants 55 50 178 28%

Leaseholders 20 19 64 30%

Private tenants 1 1 unknown

Tenure

unknown

1 1 Na

Blocks

Amesbury 18 15 80 19%

Durrington 21 18 80 23%

Allington 5 5 18 28%

Fovant 10 10 18 56%

Welford 11 8 18 44%

Ilsley 10 10 28 36%

Block unknown 1 1 na

Type of block

Towers 39 35 160 22%

Low-rise blocks 36 34 82 41%

21


82 forms were completed. This included five from non residents. 29% of households on the estate responded.

Roughly the same proportion of tenants and leaseholders filled in forms. However, a higher proportion of residents living in low rise blocks than in than towers completed forms.

Views about numbers of homes that should be built

This question was less well answered than the questions about specific scenarios – 60 people gave responses to this.

This question split opinion – the mid point of the range of answers supports between 100 and 150 new homes.

Overall leaseholders were less willing to consider new build, at all and at scale, than tenants.

Table: How many homes would you accept? By tenure and blocks

Opinions about the scenarios

Only one person gave no views of the scenarios, some people did not want to give a view of scenarios 2 and 3 pointing out that the council did not support these.

All scenarios split opinion and overall no scenario had more people approving of it than disapproving. Scenario 4 and 5 had the most support, scenario 1 and 5 received the most opposition.

Leaseholders were more likely to see all scenarios as bad or very bad, and were particularly opposed to scenario 1, and more in favour of scenario 4.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

200+

160 to 200

100 to 150

up to 100

no new build 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

200+

160 to 200

100 to 150

up to 100

no new build

22


Council tenants’ views were split between whether scenarios 1, 4 and 5 were bad or good, but were more negative about scenarios 2 and 3.

People living in the low rise blocks were more likely to be in favour of scenarios 5 or 4 (with fewer negative views about scenario 5), people living in the towers were more likely to be in favour of scenario 4 or 1 (with fewer negative views about scenario 4).

Table: Views of the scenarios overall

What matters most

Residents asked what matters most – and to rank these in order of importance. Most people indicated what was important but did not rank the factors.

The six most important factors to residents, in order of importance, are:

• Keep the grass area

• Keep the open spaces on the estate

• CCTV on the whole estate

• Restrict heights to heights similar to low rise

• Residents keeping their existing homes

• Minimising disruption.

These are broadly the same factors that came out of earlier feedback from residents.

0 10 20 30 40

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Very bad

Bad

OK

Good

Very good

23


8 Summary of issues raised by residents

This section sets out a summary of the views expressed by residents at different events.

Density – Residents are concerned about the number of new homes being proposed

• Many residents feel that a key defining characteristic of the estate is its calm, quiet, and open

nature. They feel it is a good size that makes it stand apart from other estates in the borough.

• Many residents are concerned at the sense of calm, quiet and openness being lost as a result of

a large increase in the number of new homes on the estate.

• Many residents feel that they will become ‘boxed in’ or ‘overcrowded’ and will lose open space

as a result of too many new homes being built.

• Some residents have asked for more information about how the London Plan and Lambeth

planning policy dictate how many homes will be built. Does Lambeth have to build to the

maximum London Plan densities?

Demolition or displacement & disturbance of residents

• A number of residents are opposed to the demolition of existing buildings, as this will result in

the loss of their old homes.

• There has been ambiguity amongst residents about what exactly they will be offered in terms

of rehousing in the event their home will be demolished.

• Residents have raised concern about the displacement of existing residents and the extent to

which this would happen.

• Some residents were concerned about displacement of elderly estate residents and how they

would be affected. • Residents raised the issue that residents whose homes are not being demolished, in particular

those in the tower blocks, would not be able to sell their homes due to construction for a very

long time – and that this implication is not being made clear.

• Residents have said that people are still able to buy properties on the estate and move in,

whereas they should be notified of development before people are allowed to move in.

• Tower block residents and low rise residents ask what will be done to compensate them for the

disturbance during construction, and how will disrepair to their homes be tackled.

Rehousing offer

• There has been some ambiguity amongst residents throughout the process about what exactly

they will be offered in the event their home needs to be demolished.

• Clarity was requested in particular on offer made to leaseholders for their properties and

whether they could remain on the estate, and for tenants with regards to their tenancy

agreements.

• Costs were a large concern, and residents have been worried that increased cost of new homes

may force leaseholders off the estate, while rents may rise for tenants.

• Some tenants have asked whether existing tenants will be able to have priority for new homes,

eg could a two bed be swapped for a one bed new home with a garden?

24


• Some residents questioned the single decant policy and indicated that they would be willing to

move twice instead of only once in order to get a property they chose.

Process of consultation & mistrust

• Some residents have said that they were not satisfied with the process of consultation, and

that not enough residents were consulted.

• Some residents said that ideas were imposed on them from the beginning, and that the

consultation process started out flawed, as it did not start with enough open conversation with

residents.

• The Westbury Residents Steering Group has reported that residents felt that their views have

not been factored into the decision making process around the development of new homes on

the estate, particularly around the number of new homes being considered on the estate.

• Some residents have felt that Social Life has not adequately communicated details of

consultation events and distributed information about design ideas.

• Some residents have said that they think Social Life is only feeding information back to

Lambeth that suits Lambeth’s agenda.

• Residents have said that they feel that the design ideas being produced are not taking into

account their concerns or suggestions, particularly with regards to the absence of any option

which builds closer to 100 homes on the estate, or a design option which only builds on the

garage site / Ilsley Court. • Some residents have said that the process of consultation and decision making was unclear and

moving too fast, and that this was creating a lot of confusion amongst residents, who had not

all understood the extent of change being proposed. They felt that this undermined the

consultation feedback presented by Social Life.

• Residents have repeatedly expressed a mistrust of Lambeth, as well of Social Life and

Metropolitan Workshop as contractors. • Assurances or information has often been treated with skepticism, as there is a view that

Lambeth could double back on commitments unless they are legally binding.

• Residents have requested and are seeking independent advice as a result of this mistrust.

Housing stock & maintenance

• For some residents, maintenance and quality of existing homes was a problem.

• Some residents said that old buildings should not look mismatched with any new ones as it

might create a ‘have’ and ‘have not’ divide. • Some were concerned about the size of any new homes in comparison to their current home.

Open areas & green areas

• Many tower block residents said that the green space on the estate were valuable and well

loved.

• Many low-rise residents reported that the fountain area was valuable and should be repaired.

• Residents are worried that new development will reduce the amount of green or open space on

the estate.

25


• Some low-rise residents were concerned about losing their gardens. • Heathbrook park is also well loved, however some residents expressed a desire for a play area

for smaller children within the estate.

Openness & height of buildings

• Many residents said what they loved about the estate was the openness, calm and quiet. This was perceived to be one of the reasons the estate did not have much crime and was a pleasant place to live.

• Many residents have expressed concern at being ‘boxed in’ by tall buildings or being in a ‘concrete jungle’ if there was to be new development.

Parking & access

• Residents are concerned about a reduction in parking space if there is an increase in the number of houses on the estate.

• Some residents have also mentioned that it is difficult for vehicles (e.g. emergency vehicles, rubbish collection, or deliveries) to access some of the homes on the estate.

Sense of belonging

• There is a sense of belonging and civic pride on the estate, especially amongst long-time residents.

Neighbourliness

• Many residents said they wanted to stay near existing neighbours if they are moved. • Residents voiced concerns about new housing physically dividing tenants and leaseholders,

asking for the type of mix that there is at present to be retained – where leaseholders and council tenants live next door to each other.

Safety

• The estate is perceived as relatively safe (albeit with some issues reported around drug use and occasional anti-social behaviour from youths on the estate).

Location & Transport

• Westbury estate is located in a good part of London with quick & easy access to central London, decent transport links, and shopping centres fairly nearby in Clapham Junction and Clapham High Road.

26


Fountain area

• The fountain area between the low-rise courts well loved is well loved and has fallen into disrepair.

The look of new housing and general visual appeal

• There were mixed feelings about the blue colour of the low rise buildings. • There was a desire that any new housing or redevelopment ensures that the mix of building

stock does not look abnormal. That new homes blend with older homes that remain, including the towers.

• A need to improve the external appearance of the towers and remaining low rise was expressed.

New facilities

• Some residents were keen for a new community centre to be built. • Residents said that improved play areas for young children, and cycle parking were needed. • Residents asked for environmental improvements – possibly local energy generation through

solar power.

Further questions received from residents on 16th

April 215

Whether possible demolition of the estate is the right decision in the first instance.

Why is demolition in any scenario?

Has Lambeth considered other options as opposed to those currently suggested?

The process followed by Lambeth appears to be flawed.

The financial model is questionable. More transparency and verification is required.

Is it social housing/affordable housing?

What is the private developers’ role in project or ownership and impact on residents?

Time frame for transition is extremely short. More transition time is imperative for residents to look at all options, consider them and make well informed decisions. Affecting them, their families and their lives.

The ‘apparent’ surveys so far taken by Social Life on behalf of Lambeth not fully representative of resident’s views.

What are the potential consequences of demolition on the quality of lives of residents? Noise pollution, building sites and disruption.

Is the amount/ volume of new suggested homes the right amount?

Buyers were not informed of any potential demolition/rebuilding.

Tenants have incurred major expenses in improving their homes.

27


Potential buyers are uncertain about the right to buy applications being processed or recently awarded to them.

Leaseholders have serious questions about the offers to them. Such as shared equity, shared ownership etc.

Why not 100% ownership for leaseholders or like for like?

There is uncertainty of financial and mortgage arrangements suggested to leaseholders.

What is the affordability and cost of new homes for leaseholders?

What is the affordability of rent for tenants?

Will be it ‘like for like’ for new homes? Eg size, children, elderly and disabled folks, ground floor accessibility.

Will the size of new homes, be smaller or bigger? And if so what is the impact?

Will tenants be forced to bid for homes?

There is need for more options for tenants to enable them make well informed decisions.

There is need for clear and unambiguous options/offers, for residents from Lambeth with legal penalties.

What will be the manner and style of bull dozing and subsequent impact?

How long will construction take and its effects?

Structural issues -whether structures will block access to light/windows of some neighbours etc

Health implications for residents due to the extensive and continuous construction.

Impact on GP services as a result of the volume of families moving into the estate at once.

Environmental implications for residents and neighbourhood for an extensive period.

Will tenancy agreements be altered?

Whether management will be under housing association.

Security of tenancy is in question.

Will there be an Increase in service charges?

What are Lambeth council’s sources of Finance?

What are the verifiable resources, costs/expenditure, viability and completion of the whole project?

SPV’ –LTD companies’ model, is it private door privatisation?

Suggested alternative so far:

Green space, car parks, other spaces, industrial space, around the estate, building above flats?

Will leaseholders have the option of a double decant if they want to live on a different part of the estate than what is built first?

Will the residents (tenants or leaseholders) of the towers also get compensation or disturbance payment?

28


Can leaseholds be extended after the new leases are put in place?

Why is a “no disruption” option not considered?

Has the council considered any other sites to build on (sites not already estates) If not, why not?

Will the council buy properties in the towers / other “unaffected” properties if leaseholders want to sell / leave the estate?

Is there any information for current prospective buyers? (eg if someone is looking to buy on Westbury now, will they find any information about what is going on?)

Why are lower numbers not considered?

What impact will the increased numbers have on local infrastructure like transport and schools?

How many alternatives will tenants have when moving? Will it be a “take it or leave it” situation?

It seems that the council is not building for social housing – eg space, size, density is not considered, home for families. Can we have more evidence of this?

Will the council be looking at the actual homes and the details and nuances of living on Westbury? Eg sizes, balconies, bathroom windows etc

When will we be getting documents without ‘draft’ on them?

Can more Ilsley specific meetings / discussions be organised?

What are the positives for us?

Can we get a more specific timeline?

Why do our tenancies have to change? Why can’t we stay secure tenants and have the same rights as neighbours?

When should I start speaking to banks / lenders about transferring my mortgage and selling my property?

When will the structural survey of the towers be carried out?

Should we consider private sale homes open to the market as this may mean more residents invested in the estate in the long term?

Where will new residents park? Some new residents may have kids and require space to park their car, are we telling them they can't park?

Appendices Three Appendices are attached:

Appendix 1: materials used

Appendix 2: exhibition boards from 1st exhibition

Appendix 3: exhibition boards from 2nd exhibition

Documents

Westbury engagement report final 200615