Thanks for the update. Any feedback from the meeting?
I notice that the officers reply to Jeremys question did not mention the "informative" agreed at Planning Committee.
* Add informative that the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate. This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the Planning Division
By way of an update, tenants now being evicted as the first blocks are
prepared for demolition.
On Saturday I spent several hours meeting tenants who are being thrown
out of their homes, in one case after being there for seven years on
an assured shorthold tenancy and on Monday I went to Lambeth County
Court on behalf of another tenant, summonsed to appear that day, to plead for her to be allowed a little more time before being forced out.
Assured shorthold tenants may have no legal rights to stay but we managed to get her
an extra 28 days rather than her being thrown out immediately.
As for the assurance given at the Planning Committee that Lambeth try
to ensure that all Loughborough Park AST residents in housing need be
rehoused on the redeveloped estate this does not appear to have been
worth more than the paper it was written on.
As Gramsci noted, the response to my Scrutiny question about what action was taken to
carry out this decision did not cite any action taken. There was lots
of stuff about what the Council claims to have done to help Loughborough Park
ASTs but nothing about getting them rehoused on the estate, and lots
about how Guinness had no duty towards them and never had any
intention to rehouse them on the estate.
As for the use of an “informative” being added to the planning
permission saying that planning officers would instruct Lambeth
housing officers to use their best endeavours with Guinness the legal
advice was that this was completely out of order, since informatives
are to be addressed to the Applicant, they are nothing to do with
action to be taken by the Council.
One cannot but conclude that it was all said to take the heat off
councillors who felt deeply uncomfortable faced with the people about to be made homeless. In fact one councillor at the scrutiny meeting, it is
minuted, “acknowledged that an informative had not been the correct
method but PAC members wanted something in the minutes to ensure that
members had sympathised with the residents.”
I’m sure residents like to know that Councillors sympathise with them
– although that should be part of the job description - but it is
wrong to mislead people into thinking that something is going to be
done for them when it quite clearly isn’t.
Minutes can be read at:
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=113&MId=7623