Demolition or refurbishment of social housing?

UCL Engineering have developed a series of resources for understanding the issues around demolition or refurbishment of social housing in London.

The demolition of homes is amongst the most contentious issues in urban regeneration. Just Space and the London Tenants Federation commissioned the Engineering Exchange and UCL Urban Laboratory to review the technical evidence for demolition or refurbishment of social housing in London.

The review found that housing refurbishment is often better than demolition and reconstruction when considering social, environmental and energy factors. Demolition and refurbishment decisions for buildings are often taken by professional experts and developers, without adequate engagement with local residents and communities. Good decision making in regeneration requires thoughtful assessment of financial and technical information, within a context of meaningful engagement with residents and communities.

See the UCL Engineering Resources here

ShareShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Every Flat in a New South London Development Has Been Sold to Foreign Investors


Andy Jones writing for Vice.com

When the Heygate Estate was demolished there were promises of social housing and a “community feel”, but it’s all fallen through.

…As the remaining home owners clung on until 2013, Southwark Council cut off heating and switched off the lifts, leaving tenants – council tax payers – stranded. Those residents who owned their own properties were served compulsory purchase notices for insultingly low sums. At that time, a local one bed flat could be bought for £300,000, yet Southwark Council offered just £80,000 for Orho Okorodudu’s Heygate flat. Another resident, Adrian Glasspool, a teacher, was offered £225,000 for his three-bed ground-floor maisonette. The equivalent on the new estate would set him back £1 million. He said, “Lendlease is estimated to make a £200 million profit from the expropriation of our homes. We have literally been sold out by our own council.”…

See article here.

ShareShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

K+C Labour Group’s estate regeneration consultation response

Mayor of London

HOMES FOR LONDONERS
Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration
December 2016

Response of the Kensington and Chelsea Labour Group of Councillors

 

10 March 2017

Estate Regeneration Consultation
Housing & Land Directorate
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London SE1 2AA

The Labour Group of Councillors of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) welcomes the consultation on the Mayor’s draft good practice Guide to Estate Regeneration. In Kensington and Chelsea we have significant experience of estate demolition and regeneration as currently practised by Catalyst Housing at Wornington Green, London W10 and as proposed by RBKC at Warwick Road W8, Barlby, Burleigh and Treverton W10, Silchester East and West W10 and at four smaller blocks of social housing in London W10 and W11. Continue reading

ShareShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Piers Thompson’s estate regeneration consultation response

From: Piers Thompson
Subject: Estate Regeneration Consultation
Date: 14 March 2017 13:00:58 GMT
To: erguideconsultation@london.gov.uk

 

I am writing as an individual and also on behalf of Silchester Residents Association. Silchester East and West is an estate in W10 by Latimer Road tube which is under threat of regeneration. The vast majority of residents oppose demolition and feel that RBKC are not listening to us.

Might I first remind the Mayor of his manifesto commitment.

“Require that estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support, based on full and transparent consultation.” Continue reading

ShareShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Rocky, MIPIM and the Lobbyist

The Grenfell Action Group reveal more RBKC shenanigans.

The Grenfell Action Group will be writing to the Leader of the RBKC asking why Cllr Moylan and Cllr Feilding-Mellen have repeatedly accepted hospitality from Terrapin Communications and why a senior Council Officer has not been present when meetings between Terrapin and senior RBKC Councillors have taken place. It is correct protocol for Councillors not to meet to discuss RBKC business with private companies or individuals without having these meetings witnessed and recorded by Council Officers. The fact that Feilding-Mellen has travelled to MIPIM in Cannes, where Bingle and Terrapin have a regular presence, only further muddies these murky waters!

Read more here.

ShareShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn