Ferrier Regeneration Update FEBRUARY 2009

1. There are about 1,100 empty homes at present here, as a result of a decant (Moving the community out to other homes) that began in 2004.

2. Even if the housing market picks up none of the main blocks will be demolished until 2-3 years time. At the present rate that means 1,800 wasted and empty homes by the time the first new build is ready.

3.  They promised us a rolling redevelopment with minimum disruption of the community with its vital support networks for parents and refugees, They also promised to minimise the waste of homes – maybe 250 in total would have to move before any new build was ready.

But the Council’s own report talks about removing the whole community in order to raise land values to cut the cost of the redevelopment.

4. The redevelopment will only supply about 430 homes for rent, instead of the 1800 or so here originally – less than a quarter.  This is because the figure for the affordable housing to be built (736) includes over 300 extra care homes for the elderly and disabled, (which should be in addition to the other affordable housing) and a far greater proportion of shared ownership homes (50% instead of 30%) instead of social rented homes.

5. Other councils have used housing co-operatives to use empty homes on temporary lets for the homeless.  The only homeless people to be rehoused here are put in the areas not yet due for decant – all the emptied homes in decant areas are vandalised by the Council on the pretex of preventing squatters coming in.

6. There is currently only funding for the first 140 or so homes to be built in the local Sutlciffe Park (which would have required no decanting or demolition).  There will be no "for sale" housing built until the market improves (we don’t know when that will be), but the profits from the "private for sale" homest are required to fund the rest of the social rented and shared ownership homes.

7.  Our fear is that decant and demolition will proceed, leaving the whole site vacant (as envisaged in the Council report above) awaiting the resurgence of the housing market, and removing the embarrassing sight of wasted social housing.

8.  The empty homes have not been cleared of rubbish but the windows and doors are being removed thereby not only leaving these properties open to the elements but also open to vermin. as a resault pigeons, squirrels, rats and mice infest certain parts of the estate. As more and more homes are emptied areas of the estate become more and more desolate, and residents living in isolated pockets obviously have an increased fear of crime.

Meanwhile, maintenance, including upkeep of secure entry systems, is at an all time low.

======================================================  

THE FERRIER ESTATE.

Background

The Ferrier Estate near Eltham in the south of the London Borough of Greenwich was home to almost 2000 households (about 60% from BME backgrounds) before 2004.  It is a beacon of racial tolerance against the backdrop of Stephen Lawrence’s murder.

In 1999 we were promised a regeneration which would provide us with new homes, tackle deprivation and tackle unemployment.  However, the “Kidbrooke Vision” regeneration has now featured in three housing magazines and two television programmes as a scheme which is, in the words of a report adopted by Greenwich Council, removing a community to raise land values.  Since 2004 two hundred families p.a. have been removed.  No new homes will be built until 2010-2013, when we are told that 130-140 affordable homes for rent, none of which requires any demolition of the growing number of homes which have been empty since 2004. 

The Council report adopted by Greenwich at Full Council in 2000 reveals the cold intention of removing the community, while we were being assured at meetings and in writing that the new homes were for us.

The report says,

“There is little doubt that the Ferrier Estate has stigmatised the area. Accordingly, LB Greenwich needs to show it means business and adopt a comprehensive approach to the scheme. Whilst a rolling programme of piecemeal development seems sensible to facilitate the logistics of decanting such a large number of Tenants, it simply will not generate the values needed. We believe that complete demolition of the Ferrier Estate and a new comprehensive quality scheme is essential to remove the stigma of the current estate and its effect on land values.”(Appendix 1 “Executive Summary”)

In the main body of the report (para 9.17) it says,

“…this option will result in a significant impact on social networks in the immediate term.  Equally, those social networks that help to reinforce prejudice and anti-social behaviour will also be affected.  A decant programme which seeks to exploit opportunities for re-location elsewhere in the Borough may help reduce any adverse effects.  In the longer-term it would create a safer and more secure community, benefiting the wider South Greenwich area and reducing the fear of crime.”

However, assurances to the contrary continued to be given both verbally (we have recorded them on video) and in writing.  In November 2002, Cabinet Councillor Peter Challis wrote the following Council headed letter to FRAG

“ Greenwich Council’s commitment is as follows; Anyone who lives on the Ferrier Estate who wishes to remain living in the masterplan area will be able to do so as a result of the redevelopment. As I indicated last night, (at the AGM of FRAG) I believe that this is a commitment that has been previously made by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Chris Roberts and the Deputy Leader Councillor Peter Brooks. I also made it clear that Greenwich Council recognises that there are established communities and social networks. These networks may be the result of family, ethnicity or cultural ties or they may have developed through schools, childminding networks etc.; As part of the redevelopment, the Council intends, as a policy objective, to promote social cohesion and minimise the disruption of these communities” This emphatic letter dated 14^th November 2002 was copied to the Council Leader, his Deputy, local ward Councillors as well as to senior Council officers and the two local MPs Nick Raynsford and Clive Efford. I understand that Mr. Challis is now the secretary of the National Labour Housing Group.  The rapid and extensive decant begun in 2004 (together with a withdrawal of the promise of 2-way removals)  unfortunately indicated a very different reality.  Only about one third of tenants remain, and the decant continues, with no new build as yet.

Out of the original 1910 households, only about 700 tenant households and about 100 home-owner households remain.  The decant started in 2004, and new build is to start only this year, with about 140 homes for rent to be built over 2-3 years.  No demolition (or decant) is required for this as it will be along the edge of Sutcliffe Park .

Recently, sincere efforts have been made by the Deputy Leader, Peter Brooks (who is Councillor for Regeneration), who initially promised in 2008 that people in the last half of the decant would have the right to remain until new housing is ready in the regeneration.  Unfortunately, it seems that this will not be implemented, as those particular tenants are being asked the question “If possible, would you like to remain until new housing is built?” and the decant strategy continues with its targets (emphasis mine).  He is also trying to get some subsidy for the next 150 or so affordable rented homes (phase 2 of the redevelopment, which will require some demolition), but this is unlikely.

All but the government-subsidised first phase of new build will require cross-subsidy from the sale of homes by the developer, Berkeley Homes.  The effects of the falling housing market mean that there will probably be no homes for sale built for some time, with the danger that the scheme will stall.    Moreover, the developer is now talking about a 50%/50% split in the affordable housing between rented and shared ownership housing, rather than 70% rented, so that the supply of rented housing will be about 650 homes, to replace the 1900 originally here.  Meanwhile our multicultural community with its vital internal support networks is being dispersed, with the 4^th (out of 6) decant phase has started, with a target of 4 households per week.

Assurances that people can return are hollow – the deliberate early start of the decant long before a developer was recruited, and the withdrawal of two-way removals have put paid to that.  The Council use the fact that in the housing needs survey 70% of people did not want to return – but we are convinced that the main reason for this is the uncertain future and the unnecessarily long time-lag between decant and new build, so that families will have put down roots in that time.  We are suffering from added vermin, and many live in isolated pockets.  The Greenwich borough housing waiting list has doubled from 6000 to about 15000 since the Ferrier decant began.  Emptied homes have the plumbing smashed, making them useless for homeless people.

It seems that the intention (set out in a Council report in 2000) to remove the Ferrier Community  to raise land values and minimize required subsidy will be realized, breaking “new homes for old” promises made to the Ferrier Community. 

Nick Russell

Chair, Ferrier Residents’ Action Group

07988713014

ferrierfrag@hotmail.co.uk

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(TO BE ABLE TO READ OUR LATEST PRESS REPORT JUST DOWN LOAD YOUR OWN COPY IN WORD FORMAT: GO TO BOTTOM OF CAMPAIGN PAGE)

-----------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How are the remaining residents going to manage with out any shops at all?

 It will be bad enough for the majority of residents.

HOW will the Elderly,Disabled and Infirm manage?  And those with young children will find it very hard as well.

*******************************************************************

Read and down load any past reports and updates as a Word document, at the bottom of the  "Campaign" section.