Issue - meetings

Cabinet received a deputation organised by Shirley Wiggins opposing the redevelopment proposals.  She stated that the residents were proud of the estates and their community.  They are steadfastly determined to stop the Council and the developers from wrecking their estates, destroying their community and separating neighbour from neighbour.  She felt Capco's plans for Earls Court would be a disaster for the whole of Earls Court, West Kensington and North Fulham.  The redevelopment would overwhelm the transport networks.

She noted that despite the Council’s claims to residents that no decision had been made to include the estates in the scheme, letters have been received reporting that the Council's developer associates, EC Properties Limited had applied to demolish their homes.  Residents were unable to access the planning applications on either the Council's or the developer's websites.  She felt the Council's handling of the planning applications paid no regard to due process and law. 

She further stated that the overwhelming majority of residents opposed the demolition plans and wanted community ownership.  80% of the residents have signed a petition opposing the proposal and two thirds of households intend to join the new association to take over their homes.  She was of the view that the Council should organise a properly supervised ballot on the estates with an independent scrutineer  - the residents will abide by its outcome.  She stated that the Council had set itself against the whole thrust of Government policy which encouraged decisions affecting people's lives to be devolved to local communities so they can decide their future for themselves.

She was of the opinion that the Council's decision to take £15 million from the developer would be a conflict of interest with its role as a public and planning authority.  The approval of an "exclusivity deal" will amount to a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which states that everyone has the right to respect for his/her home.  She concluded that the deal was not lawful, democratic nor necessary.  She requested Cabinet to act responsibly and say no to £15 million for demolition, give the residents the power to determine their own future in line with Government policy; and co-operate with them to take community control of their neighbourhood.

Maureen Way, a resident who had lived on the estate for 40 years, supported the redevelopment proposals.  She observed that the area had been in decline over the past couple of years.  The neighbourhood did not have any adult leisure facilities such as a cinema.  Young children also did not have a decent open play area like their counterparts in other parts of the borough.  There were no decent shopping facilities in the area resulting in the residents travelling long distances for good shops.  She objected to the idea of non residents running the estate via a community association.  She pleaded for the proposal to go ahead so that decent homes, modern leisure and health facilities, and good play areas were made available to the residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23