Southwark to demolish Aylesbury estate

[William of Walworth]

From Inside Housing magazine

Conference debate delivers blow to ministers

Thursday 29th September 2005

Delegates at the Labour Party conference have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a fourth option for investment in council housing.


For the second year in a row, grass roots Labour members have delivered an embarrassing blow to ministers, who have repeatedly said there will be no additional investment options to fund improvements to council housing.


Before the debate this morning, local government and communities minister David Miliband appealed to delegates not to support the motion.


‘Public borrowing is limited, because we cannot take risks with the economy,’ he said. ‘So the only way to meet the demand of the motion would be to rob Peter to pay Paul: less for new build or fewer people helped. We just can’t do that.’


But in a show of hands, the vast majority of delegates ignored Mr Miliband’s plea and voted in favour of a fourth option.


Leslie Christie, a councillor from the Gravesham constituency Labour party who supported the fourth way, slated the local government minister’s speech.


‘What he was saying is if you stay a council house tenant you won’t get a new bathroom, you won’t get new windows and we will make sure you don’t because we won’t give you any money to do it,’ he said.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

When this thread was first started, I emailed the Defend Council Housing website with details/news of all this, and linls to all the press releases, Guardian stories, etc.

This website doesn't seem to be update very regularly though.

 

[William of Walworth]

Sorry for continuing Cut and Paste, needed to get up to date with news

Also from Inside Housing, this time more Aylesbury-specific, and from last week (Friday 23 September 2005).

Estate faces destruction to escape renovation costs
A London authority is being urged to completely demolish one of the largest estates in Europe in a bid to avoid having to foot a £350 million refurbishment bill.

The knock down and redevelop proposal is the most affordable way of ensuring the massive Aylesbury estate can meet the government’s decent homes standard, Southwark Council officers have warned.

The new stock would be built and owned by a housing association despite tenants’ previous rejection of a stock transfer.

The officers’ report, expected to be considered by the Liberal Democrat-run authority’s executive next week, says that none of the government’s methods of refurbishing its stock would bring in enough money to complete the work.

The cost of regenerating the estate has been significantly increased by the unexpected demand for urgent structural work needed to lessen the impact of any gas explosion (Inside Housing, 24 February).

The authority is also under mounting government pressure to ensure the regeneration’s success, according to a letter from communities minister David Miliband to the estate’s local MP Harriet Harman.

Mr Miliband says he met senior officials at the council in June and hoped the council ‘is now prepared to make and implement this crucial decision.’

Earlier attempts to regenerate the estate with the use of a New Deal for Communities grant was thwarted when tenants voted against transferring to a new landlord.

But Neil Kirby, Southwark Council’s regeneration initiatives manager, said the demolition and redevelopment route would remove the need for a new ballot.

‘A ballot has a legal purpose in terms of stock transfer. We would gauge opinion though market research as we did for the Elephant & Castle regeneration scheme.

‘Indications are that residents support the idea of redevelopment,’ he said.

Labour ward councillor Paul Bates said that although the proposed demolition had split opinion on the estate the majority of tenants and leaseholders were in favour.

‘On this occasion there is a feeling among many tenants and residents that something radical needs to be done.’

Cheers for speaking up for the tenants' true interests Paul!

 

[William of Walworth]

This website doesn't seem to be update very regularly though.

I've noticed -- that's a markdown for them IMO , they can't even get yesterday's LP Conference vote (a big issue for them,) onto the front page of their site, whereas 'Inside Housing' managed it.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

You suggested in an earlier post that Paul Bates might be implicated in liaising between the Government and the Council (you also mentioned that Harriet Harman might be implicated in this) in such a way as to push the demolition decision forward. Have you any concrete evidence for that?

I think that what I was saying is that they were mouthing words to the extent of supporting council housing. as for harriett harman, I was in the room at a big NDC public meeting (along with piers) when she said she would support the retention of public housing (practically every tenants there supported council housing as opposed to HAs. I'll try tho extract the quotes published in the southwark news february or march, I believe. as for paul bates and the aylesbury, he has, IIRC, been quoted in the Southwark News talking about the "nuclear option" (his exact words) as being an option for the Aylesbury.

it wasn't a full council meeting as we know it. it was an executive meeting, so labour councillors were not involved in any voting. paul bates was sitting with the rest of the public. I can't talk about lorraine lauder records because I don't know her ward, but going to some of these meetings, I have only generally seen paul bates out of the three councillors. to be fair to paul, he does seem quite active and his eyes are on the ball and fight for this or that, but his aylesbury record at the moment does not appear to his credit. he has not, for instance, as far as I can see promoted any democratic vote on the estate.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Labour ward councillor Paul Bates said that although the proposed demolition had split opinion on the estate the majority of tenants and leaseholders were in favour.

how does he know how opinions have changed that dramatically since 2001, eh? will he support a democratic vote to assert whether he is right or not? not much signs of that so far....

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Do you know anything about the circumstances of how they managed that? And when it happened??

I don't know the exact details, piers will know more about this one, but my understanding is that there was a lot of infighting between two different groups of tenants about management, and that peabody was determined to go its own way, regardless of the opinion of MPs and councillors. it was all getting unmanageable and led to a standstill. finally, the council took it back in house a few weeks ago, beginning of september, I believe.

personally, I'd like to know more about what's going on about all this alleged selling and renting at market value of flats by peabody. if that's true, it's a real scandal and show that new HAs flats are not safe from privatisation.

 

[William of Walworth]

how does he know how opinions have changed that dramatically since 2001, eh? will he support a democratic vote to assert whether he is right or not? not much signs of that so far....

I think we know the answer to this. But if I quote 'Inside Housing' at him to ask him the question, he won't be able to dismiss me as some uninformed muppet ...

 

[William of Walworth]

I don't know the exact details, piers will know more about this one, but my understanding is that there was a lot of infighting between two different groups of tenants about management, and that peabody was determined to go its own way, regardless of the opinion of MPs and councillors. it was all getting unmanageable and led to a standstill. finally, the council took it back in house a few weeks ago, beginning of september, I believe.

personally, I'd like to know more about what's going on about all this alleged selling and renting at market value of flats by peabody. if that's true, it's a real scandal and show that new HAs flats are not safe from privatisation.

Keeping up with all the emailing is going to be hard work <depressed> but yes, getting in touch with Piers Corbyn is essential ... I don't have an address for him but will find one soon ...

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I think we know the answer to this. But if I quote 'Inside Housing' at him to ask him the question, he won't be able to dismiss me as some uninformed muppet ...

I am sure that a few of us, including piers, will want to know his written answer to one of his constituent....

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Keeping up with all the emailing is going to be hard work <depressed> but yes, getting in touch with Piers Corbyn is essential ... I don't have an address for him but will find one soon ...

see pm

 

[grogwilton]

sorry about being ignorant, but why is a housing association worse then council housing? on wikipedia they sounded ok, but lots of people whos opinion i respect are against them. why?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

sorry about being ignorant, but why is a housing association worse then council housing? on wikipedia they sounded ok, but lots of people whos opinion i respect are against them. why?

hmm, I wouldn't rely on wikipedia for your housing information, if I were you.

the point is that housing associations (HAs) are not run by democratically elected councillors, so you can't challenge their decisions or get councillors to fight on your behalf. they are often more expensive, their new housing is built on the cheap with thin walls, so you year your neighbours whenever they're fighting, and under current legislation and case law, it is a lot easier for them to evict you than it is for a council landlord.

 

[William of Walworth]

I am sure that a few of us, including piers, will want to know his written answer to one of his constituent....

I'll be on at soon, hopefully tomorrow (I'm out tonight though )

Should think I'd have to give him at least a week for a reply mind.

 

[kea]

personally, I'd like to know more about what's going on about all this alleged selling and renting at market value of flats by peabody. if that's true, it's a real scandal and show that new HAs flats are not safe from privatisation.

i'm doing a piece on this at the moment - well, just starting, so i don't have huge amounts of info but PM me if you want, or i can PM you with the article once it's done.

 

[William of Walworth]

Fascinating set of detailed interviews with Aylesbury tenants/residents in today's Guardian.

Death of an estate
The Aylesbury was Europe's biggest estate and a beacon of postwar housing, but the dream went sour. On the eve of its demolition, Laura Barton meets the residents

More in the link above.

All the people interviewed are unsparing in their negativity -- the place is a shithole with constant horrors. Read them!

It shook me up a bit, reading them. My own estate is pretty much next door, two streets away, and in 13 years I have NEVER seen anything what like these people are describing. Earlier in this thread I was defending the Aylesbury to an extent, saying it wasn't as bad a hellhole of crack and guns and crime as an earlier former resident in this thread was posting. Admittedly the place DID, to my knowledge, have a reputation in the early Nineties when I moved into the area, so much so that I was very glad to get onto the estate I did, and not the Aylesbury.

Some of the stories are truly dreadful though!

I can't help wondering all the same whether Laura Barton has got the interviews she set out to get, and whether she ONLY asked questions designed to get the worst (most sensational?) responses. No-one denies that the huge old place needs drastic improvements and changes, but Barton appears to know bugger all about either the recent history, or the wider political issues to do with the imminent demolition of the estate -- principally what's going to happen to the existing tenants in terms of future housing.

The entire effect of the undeniably eyeopening piece is to lead the outside reader to context free, shock-horror based, apolitical conclusion : Hellhole -- Crime -- Shithole -- Tenants hate it -- Must be demolished, come what may -- No further questions to be asked!

What do others think?

 

[kea]

I can't help wondering all the same whether Laura Barton has got the interviews she set out to get, and whether she ONLY asked questions designed to get the worst (most sensational?) responses.

haven't looked at the link william but i'd like to say that it's incredibly easy for even a well-intentioned or non-malicious journo to go into a situation with pre-conceptions or a pre-decided angle and not encounter anything to push them away from that stance.
not being an aylesbury resident, i can't comment on the accuracy of the article, so i won't dismiss it as being definitely affected by preconception and a clear editorial 'angle'. but it's a likely possibility.

 

[William of Walworth]

Yes, I reckon I was having half formed, and (not being a journalist) far less knowledgeable thoughts of that kind myself.

I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss the negative reactions of the inteviewees** -- as I said, reading that article made me think a fair bit.

My question is, I suppose -- all that reads like their highly valid truth (and should certainly be taken account of) but is it the ONLY truth??

** (although I retain the right to respond sharply to outsiders who make similar criticisms of the Aylesbury having only seen the 'horrid architecture' from a distance and written if off just because of that! )

 

[lang rabbie]

My question is, I suppose -- all that reads like their highly valid truth (and should certainly be taken account of) but is it the ONLY truth??

Of course it is not the ONLY truth.

But IMVHO those opposing demolition because of their own ideological opposition to the mix of tenure in any redevelopment* need to be able to look those tenants in the eye and explain why they should suffer the years disruption caused by years of major structural refurbishment just to keep the system-built blocks standing, without solving most of the estate's design problems of lack of defensible space in the staircases and decks.

* [forced upon Southwark (i) by New Labour's hatred of council housing, and (ii) New Labour's cuts in funding for all social housing providers]

 

[kea]

it's not necessarily about opposing demolition completely tho is it. it's about opposing the way it's being done. if the structural situation is as serious as the council are making out, and the costs to refurb/reinforce are as high as they've assessed them as being, then retaining the blocks can't be a realistic alternative. but that doesn't mean that the process has to be done as the council are trying to do it.

 

[William of Walworth]

Of course it is not the ONLY truth.

But IMVHO those opposing demolition because of their own ideological opposition to the mix of tenure in any redevelopment* need to be able to look those tenants in the eye and explain why they should suffer the years disruption caused by years of major structural refurbishment just to keep the system-built blocks standing, without solving most of the estate's design problems of lack of defensible space in the staircases and decks.

* [forced upon Southwark (i) by New Labour's hatred of council housing, and (ii) New Labour's cuts in funding for all social housing providers]

Why the aggression?

Piers Corbyn (no Nu Labore defender he!) and his Aylebury-resident co-campaigners gathered a LOT of support back in 2001 when the vote about stock tranfer as a non negotiable condition of the demolition/refurbishment mix then proposed. He and his two local co-candidates also won a lot of votes for WATT (Walworth Against Tenant Transfers) in the 2004 Council Elections.

I'm no defender of the Aylesbury's considerable faults and apparantly highly shitty environment as it now stands, but am I not allowed, as a local and fellow council tenant in a nearby estate, to question whether complete demolition has to have landlord-transfer as a compulsory element of that? And am I not allowed to ask these questions without being sneered at for being over ideological?

The Labour Government is FORCING this form of change -- demolish and transfer with no democratic tenant input whatseover into the decision making -- onto the Council and onto the Estate, and to sweep aside any reservations about possibly considerable drawbacks to the new scheme as ideological and therefore to be condemned, is a disgrace IMO. You hint that those with major doubts about the scheme are the ones not listening to the tenants. Suggest you level the same charge at the Government and at the Council.

If people had a genuine choice -- ie demolish or refurbish without being blackmailed into stock transfer otherwise nothing will be done -- and if they had the ghenuine option, they'd vote in big numbers to remain Council Tenants with the same level of rent protection and security of tenure as they have now, and I suspect you know that.

You post the bit in small as if these forums are a haunt of Nu Laybore defenders. You also don't mention that the now Lib Dem-run Council is taking the driving seat in forcing through these changes, with the apparant collusion of much of the Labour opposition on the Council.

 

[William of Walworth]

it's not necessarily about opposing demolition completely tho is it. it's about opposing the way it's being done. if the structural situation is as serious as the council are making out, and the costs to refurb/reinforce are as high as they've assessed them as being, then retaining the blocks can't be a realistic alternative. but that doesn't mean that the process has to be done as the council are trying to do it.

Completely agree.

I really respect and welcome lang rabbie's informative posts normally, but I think he's slipped from his usual high standards on this one.

I wonder what he'd be saying if the Council was still Labour run and doing this? I have suspicion he'd suddenly be sharing and amplifying a similar sort of set of reservations/objections to the ones I'm now making ...

Lib Dems and their supporters aren't immune from being 'ideological' themselves, despite their constant holier than thou, sanctimonious attempts to hint at or paint themselves as the ideology free, 'common sense', non politicking party ...

 

[William of Walworth]

Just to stress to lang rabbie -- if complete demolition really has become necessary, then I don't oppose it, but the question is how and on what basis it's done, and exactly what the Estate ends up being replaced with.

Is it also allowed to at least want more infomation of the comprensiveness and overall accuracy of the structural survey that led to this decision?

I'm not automatically disbelieving its accuracy, far from it -- undoubtedly there'll be parts of the Estate which are structurally unfit for habitation. But complete demolition of all of it, all blocks on it large and small, without apparant possibility of retaining/refurbishing any of it? It has to be said that the survey and its results have emerged at a time that's politically very convenient to the Council and Government.

<edit to add> Lang Rabbie seems to be aiming the charge that the anti stock transfer campaigners won't be able to look the tenants in the eye unless they (the campagners) shut up and sign up unquestioningly to an all or nothing demolition agenda involving complete freedom for the Council to house the tenants anywhere and anyhow they see fit. But how about the Council being able to look the tenants in the eye, when it becomes clearer (as it probably will) that the tenants will have no real democratic choice to remain full Council tenants if they so wish, and may not all be guarenteed right of return to the Estate? Or if they are, only on the basis that they become Housing Association tenants, with associated reduced security of tenure and almost certanly weaker controls over rent growth levels, whether thay like that or not.

Undoubtedly many tenants will have come to hate the shitty conditions of their estate sufficiently to be sanguine about some of the sacrifices that'll be forced on them, after all a better, more comfortable home is not to be sniffed at at all, and I'm sure there will be some degree of consultation on layout, design, etc,. of the new estate, even if allowing the tenants any voice over tenure type, etc. will be a big no no.

I admit all that, so it would be nice if lang rabbie and those who hate any 'ideology' or 'politics' to do with the new scheme, admitted that there's a big democratic deficit going on here.

 

[lang rabbie]

My attempts to post a long response has just been lost by our web connection going down.

I had no intention of being aggressive towards you, William.

[nips off for lunch]

 

[William of Walworth]

My attempts to post a long response has just been lost by our web connection going down.

I had no intention of being aggressive towards you, William.

[nips off for lunch]

No probs., apologies if I was over rude in return ... I just got frustrated with the idea that having major doubts and reservations about the details of the scheme amounts to being ideological or political, and thus automatically (?) not in the tenants' interets.

As I see it, the tenants are being played around with politically far more by the Council and the Governnment, than by the caution advocators and greater detail demanders ... and surely it's in the tenants' interests if they're given a genuine choice?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Fascinating set of detailed interviews with Aylesbury tenants/residents in today's Guardian.



More in the link above.

All the people interviewed are unsparing in their negativity -- the place is a shithole with constant horrors. Read them!

It shook me up a bit, reading them. My own estate is pretty much next door, two streets away, and in 13 years I have NEVER seen anything what like these people are describing. Earlier in this thread I was defending the Aylesbury to an extent, saying it wasn't as bad a hellhole of crack and guns and crime as an earlier former resident in this thread was posting. Admittedly the place DID, to my knowledge, have a reputation in the early Nineties when I moved into the area, so much so that I was very glad to get onto the estate I did, and not the Aylesbury.

Some of the stories are truly dreadful though!

I can't help wondering all the same whether Laura Barton has got the interviews she set out to get, and whether she ONLY asked questions designed to get the worst (most sensational?) responses. No-one denies that the huge old place needs drastic improvements and changes, but Barton appears to know bugger all about either the recent history, or the wider political issues to do with the imminent demolition of the estate -- principally what's going to happen to the existing tenants in terms of future housing.

The entire effect of the undeniably eyeopening piece is to lead the outside reader to context free, shock-horror based, apolitical conclusion : Hellhole -- Crime -- Shithole -- Tenants hate it -- Must be demolished, come what may -- No further questions to be asked!

What do others think?

I think, having just read the article that it is indeed what she sought to get, because the Aylesbury is always such a good story, as far as journos are concerned. it's always drugs, muggings, you name it. there is no mention of the 2001 vote against demolition, never mention interviewing people who opposed demolition then and now. it's very easy to tarnish estates like that, I have just received this morning a political leaflet through my letter box claiming that my estate was rife with drug dealing (where? I want some ) and prostitution ( aload of bollocks, actually) and blaming the libdem for it (whatever the libdems may have been up to, I have yet to see anyone of them selling their bodies outside my windows ). yet this ludicrous stories stick. there is no doubt that there is plenty of crime on the Aylesbury, but this is South London, not leafy Surrey.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Of course it is not the ONLY truth.

But IMVHO those opposing demolition because of their own ideological opposition to the mix of tenure in any redevelopment* need to be able to look those tenants in the eye and explain why they should suffer the years disruption caused by years of major structural refurbishment just to keep the system-built blocks standing, without solving most of the estate's design problems of lack of defensible space in the staircases and decks.

* [forced upon Southwark (i) by New Labour's hatred of council housing, and (ii) New Labour's cuts in funding for all social housing providers]

living locally (outside the Aylesbury) and knowing some of the people involved in the campaign, there are plenty of people who actually live there who are opposed and actively campaign against demolition. just because you'd rather have social housing staying with the council doesn't mean that your concern should be dismissed as being "ideologically" minded. yes there are structural problems, but they were known 17 years ago, and only resurfaced at a very convenient time when demolition was being mooted again.

 

[Tricky Skills]

The 'story' of the Aylesbury from any journo's point of view is always linked to Mr Tony's Social Inclusion visit in '97. The Estate has now come to represent the failed New Labour policy. It's not as if the Aylesbury is the only estate in London that needs change, but a dig at the Aylesbry is a dig at Mr Tony.

And where's his much mooted second visit now?

I work on the estate and so have some sense of the local feeling, although not as a resident. I didn't recognise any of the opinions put forward in The Guardian article. If anything it is the opposite from my limited conversations with locals.

The problem again all comes to the politicisation of the locals. They have been kicked around over the past decade by one ideology to another. I'm still undecided if the demolition decision is for the best, but not living there then it's not something that I have to deal with (although my job may be by implication be also for the wrecking ball).

The term 'forgotten folk' is the one trusim from Mr Tony's '97 speech. The forgotten people are now being pushed aside.

 

[kea]

Mr Tony's Social Inclusion visit in '97.
...
And where's his much mooted second visit now?

he did a comeback there recently didn't he, launching summat during the last election? or was that another labour minister? i'm sure he was there recently, tho, cos it was the subject of comment in the office when this demolition story came out.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

he did a comeback there recently didn't he, launching summat during the last election? or was that another labour minister? i'm sure he was there recently, tho, cos it was the subject of comment in the office when this demolition story came out.

you're probably referring to Harriet Harman, the local MP and the attorney general at the time. they are still waiting for tony blair.