Have Your Say

INSIDE HOUSING

New laws could see homes transferred to residents

Councils could be forced to help tenants’ groups form housing associations to take over the ownership and management of their estates, under government plans.

In a move likely to initiate a new wave of stock transfers, ministers will next month launch a consultation on regulations that require authorities to co-operate with tenants seeking ownership of their estates.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/housing-management/new-laws-could-see-homes-transferred-to-residents/6513129.article

THE GUARDIAN

Tory council could be stopped from demolishing estates by government plans for tenants
Coalition aims to give tenants power to take control of properties as part of ‘big society’

Dave Hill
guardian.co.uk,    Tuesday 11 January 2011 14.38 GMT

Local residents could prevent a flagship Conservative-led London borough from demolishing two or more of its council estates under powers the government intends to place in the hands of tenants’ groups.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/11/tory-council-housing-estates-tenants

THE GUARDIAN

Housing powers: Hammersmith, Fulham and Shirley Porter

What might happen in London as a result of the government’s move to potentially give Council tenants new powers to own and manage their estates for themselves? Inside Housing, which broke the story, reckons “a new wave of stock transfers” could break across the land.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/davehillblog/2011/jan/11/government-council-tenants-self-governing-powers

PROPERTY WEEK

CapCo faces “localist” stumbling block
12 January 2011

Developer Capital & Counties has hit a fresh planning hurdle in its proposed 67-acre redevelopment of the Earl’s Court area in west London.

Coalition ministers want to implement a 25-year-old law that would force councils to assist tenants who want to take ownership of their estates – a move that would jeopardise the large residential scheme that makes up around 35% of CapCo’s scheme.

http://www.propertyweek.com/news/capco-faces-localist-stumbling-block/5011389.article#ixzz1Aopmd9Mm

ESTATES GAZETTE

CapCo plays down housing regulation threat to Earls Court
Paul Norman 12/01/2011 09:17

Capital & Counties and Hammersmith and Fulham council have played down suggestions that new legislation giving tenants greater control of housing estates could threaten their proposed 67-acre Earls Court regeneration scheme.

The Department for Communities and Local Government yesterday confirmed that it will begin consultation on introducing the so far unused section 34a in the 1985 Housing act.

ARCHITECTS’ JOURNAL

Big Society challenge to Farrell’s Earls Court masterplan

12 January, 2011 | By Merlin Fulcher

New government housing regulations could scupper Terry Farrell’s 28-hectare masterplan for the redevelopment of the Earls Court exhibition centre in west London

Local residents who oppose the multi-billion pound scheme are seeking ownership of a housing estate which is earmarked for demolition under the proposals for the 33ha site.

BUILDING DESIGN

Farrell’s Earls Court redevelopment threatened by Big Society plans

A multi-billion pound scheme to redevelop the Earls Court exhibition centre in west London could be scuppered by the coalition government’s Big Society plans.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/5011541.article#ixzz1AuuCgNPy

HAMMERSMITH & KENSINGTON TIMES

Hammersmith and Fulham resident associations to block council developement plans

New legislation could transfer control of estates from council to tenant and resident groups

A COUNCIL’S plans to redevelop housing estates in West London could be in jeopardy after the government expressed its intent to allow residents to take over their estates.
Residents on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, near Earls Court, have been fighting plans by Hammersmith and Fulham Council to allow a private developer to turn their homes into mixed-use sites for the past 18 months.

http://www.hammersmithandkensingtontimes.co.uk/news/hammersmith_and_fulham_resident_associations_to_block_council_developement_plans_1_772863

FINANCIAL TIMES

http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=“Big+Society+threatens+Earls+Court+project”&ftsearchType=type_news

Hi Jonathan
Thanks for posting these articles.  For copyright reasons, we cannot re-produce them on the site but have provided links to the articles so that others can view them.

Capco fully supports Government policy to empower communities which is why hundreds of meetings and a series of drop-in sessions have taken place since February last year to consult with people who live in the area on the Earls Court Project. In fact, this website was created specifically so that local residents can have their say.

Proposed regulation changes by the government which may affect local residents will need to be consulted upon and it is too early to speculate about them. 

We are on track with our plans and confident that when we publish the masterplan for the Earls Court Project next month, the majority of people who live in the area will recognise the huge benefits it could bring to them and to London.

I live on Gibbs Green and most residents on Gibbs Green DO NOT want the development to happen. people are spreading lies about Jonathon intimidating people. We have asked to be shown the evidence but to date we have been given none and all we get is more rubbish spouted about the committees who are working to the mandate residents elected us to do.

If you have evidence to show intimidation etc please come and meet us face to face. We have offered to meet people before and our offer has been declined.

What benefits are there going to be for residents? The council have issued a contract to all residents asking us to sign but how can you sign this document to say you will move to the new development when according to Stephen Greenhalgh no decision has been made. In the contract it repeatedly says IF this, IF that. He informed everyone that his decision would be made and delivered to us by December 2010. It is now the end of May 2011 and still no decision how would he like to be living with an uncertain future. Does he not realise that peoples healths are suffereing because of his indecision

Thanks for your comment Diana.

We do think that the residents of both estates would get considerable benefits from the development as all will be offered a new and better home within the Earls Court Project area.

The decision as to whether the estates are included in the development or not rests with the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.

The West Kensington & Gibbs Green residents have repeatedly asked Capital and Counties to exclude the estates from their planning application, but they have declined to do so.

It is incorrect to say that most of the residents DO NOT want this development.  When you went round people’s homes recently, you deliberately missed out many.  I was told by a member of West Ken TRA that she was told not to ask me about whether or not I supported the proposal.  As it turns out, others were excluded.  She even showed me the list of homes with lines crossed through them.

How is that fair to residents who want a better home?

In response to Sarah’s post The information I wrote on this site is NOT incorrect. You are the one giving incorrect information. You keep saying you have been shown a list and that we have been told not to visit you, This is totally false,  yet you fail to provide us with the information we requested such as who told you and what list. We have been knocking at every door and have so far left no day unknocked.

If you would like to tell me who gave you this information and showed you this alleged list then I will look into it. I have offered to meet you yet you refuse each time.

Everyone is entitled to their own views on the redevelopment and we respect each individuals choice. To date we have only met 2 people who said they were for the redevelopment and we respected their views and we can take you to them so that you can see we did not intimidate them like you keep saying.

If you would like to meet to discuss the issues you appear to have with certain committtee members I am only too willing to meet you otherwise please stop slandering us.

I have been offered twice to meet with you and twice I have accepted and twice you have not bothered to take it any further.  So for the third time…I accept your offer to meet.  You know I’m telling the truth so ranting and denying it won’t change facts.  I will happily meet with you.  You blacklisted me…..so you know where I am.  I also complained to Andrew Slaughter and a local councillor regarding the incident straight away after and had a meeting regarding it.  Many people on the estate have complained about the behaviour of your housing adviser recently and at your fair last week.  Not to mention his public behaviour at last weeks exhibition and the previous exhibition where he had to be warned…..or is everyone lying.  You need to listen to what is being said around you instead of burying your head in the sand.  So, yes let’s meet.  Bring it on!

Also, there was a large group of 15 or so residents at the exhibition at the same time as you. They were signing forms to show their very real interest in the scheme.  You know them as residents and they know you.  There was only your group of 4 (hardly mob handed) and the larger residents group signing up in the room at the time.  So you can’t say you did not know who they are and what they were doing.  They knew you.  This means that tthere were witnesses to the behaviour of your adviser and their presence also invalidates your claim that you only know 2 people who are interested in better homes.  I get my information from other residents….unless you are calling them liars too.  One resident has said that they may want to come with me to a meeting with you.  I am glad that there is a continual dialogue amongst residents regarding these issues.  It is important that residents are able to openly and fairly discuss their future as a community.

Another fundamental flaw in your claim/statement/argument on this website is that you say that two thirds are against the development and that you have knocked on every door on the estates.  That would mean that a third are for the development.  However, you have clearly stated that you only know 2 people who are for the proposal.  That would mean that only 6 people live on the estate. At least one of these statements is false.

The facts are that 2/3 of the estates have signed up - and this can be checked with the solicitors. Re the party - it was great - and I for one never saw any untoward behaviour - just a great load of people of all ages having a good time - and eating too much!. To put the whole of these 2 estates onto a car park seems to be the plan - so a lot of people in houses are not going to get one are they? or a garage, or a garden? or a balcony?. Many many people do not want the development - so why can’t the minority that do - move over to the car park and leave everyone else here.  Dave Hill’s (Guardian)blog yesterday says it all!