Cameron observed

We received the message below from a local resident who doesn't live on our estate but clearly takes a keen interest in community issues. We thought you'd like to share it.

I went to see David Cameron when he came to speak to the electorate in LBH&F on the 5th of January. It was an interesting evening, he heaped praise on 'an excellent' local authority with a high resident satisfaction ratio - but strangely I heard mutterings of 'I've never been asked what I think about the council' from people sitting near to me who clearly were not satisfied residents. We were never given figures of how many had said they were satisfied or happy with the services and the plans this council has for its electorate.

However, it was soon evident that this was never going to be an evening of detailed thinking and precise plans; details, openness and transparency are not the qualities that David Cameron thinks are important. The experience is really a bit like being left on your own to draw up the dots, but you have no idea of what the picture is supposed to look like. During the evening, the issue of what plans the ruling Conservative administration have for estates such as Queen Caroline Estate and West Kensington came up repeatedly. David isn't one for detailed responses, but what was clear is that they want change and they want the change to directly affect people living on key estates.

He did not offer assurances that all social housing tenants would remain secure in their tenancies - in fact he said that things 'can't remain as they are'. As things are I understand that people have secure tenancies and permanence - from what he said this is clearly going to be something that they will look at with a view to change. There were no details given - only the recurring statement, 'things just can't stand still' . From this I took it to mean that he had no objection to what the council are planning; people could be moved away and merely offered unacceptable alternative accommodation on other estates or even in other areas.

Private leaseholders have been offered some money, but it will never be enough to compete on the private market in one of the most expensive boroughs in London, so they will have to look for homes in cheaper areas as even with a 'top up' it is unlikely to be enough to buy in LBH&F. The Conservatives are very keen to use social housing as a short term 'emergency' measure, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that tenancies will be restricted to five years in order for tenants to move out into privately rented or into what the Conservatives clearly prefer to social housing - ' part private ownership'. He showed no interest in the sense of community or the need for community cohesion or how destructive this measure was for communities.

Difficult questions about the Queen Caroline Estate were asked by one resident and she was amazingly persistent in trying to get out of him what they were planning to do. She asked him for reassurances that if elected he would stop the council from taking homes and forcing the destruction of the local community. Four times she asked for clarification and each time David Cameron looked uneasy and offered empty phrases - eventually just stating that they wouldn't just 'knock the places down'. When the microphone was eventually wrestled from her hand it was clear to all that he hadn't done his homework; he didn't know that there had already been a number of meetings and discussions and little if any meaningful consultation with residents about what may happen in the future. He didn't deny that they were trying to sell the land to a developer - it would be the developer who knocks them down, so his reassurance was meaningless.

I think he was taken aback by the sheer number of dissatisfied members of the local electorate who had managed to gain entry into what was a tightly controlled political meeting. What was clearly established is that it is the disabled and the elderly who are paying the price of their 'no rise in council tax' .The charges for meals on wheels and social care have rocketed during this administration according to residents present.

The persistent questioning about plans for the estate and social housing caused considerable discomfort to him. It's up to you he said - you can vote them out if you don't like them.

When we left the hall, there was a small group of frozen protesters holding banners saying Save Our Homes. Sadly it's very clear from that meeting that Queen Caroline Estate is very vulnerable to development plans and that David Cameron doesn't really care - he relies on apathy - it's what will get him elected. What was cheering was to see so many people caring about what was happening to them, their families and communities. He may have come to LBH&F thinking it was a done deal, somehow I think that he may have miscalculated and underestimated local people, especially those fighting for the right to remain on Queen Caroline Estate.

Best of luck!

Janice H.

Thanks Janice. We appreciate the time you have taken to record your observations and your thoughts, as well as your good wishes.

I guess that's why they call it the blues

On January 5th David Cameron came to Hammersmith and Fulham for one of his 'Cameron Direct' sessions in marginal constituencies. The meeting took place a hundred yards from our estate in the local church: in fact the very one in which we first made Stephen Greenhalgh admit to talks with property developers. Perhaps the trauma of that night explains why Cllr Greenhalgh didn't seem to be around on Tuesday. Or is he somewhat out of favour for his recent criticism of his mates in the Tory Shadow Cabinet for their lack of experience (expressed as "they haven’t run a piss-up in a brewery")?

You can read accounts of events at Tuesday's meeting here and here and here.

Sadly, several of us were not admitted to the meeting, despite registering. Why? We don't know. We are trying to find out from Tory HQ what their selection and vetting process was. Surely they wouldn't deliberately exclude people just for being in dispute with the Council?

One of our group, Shirley Cupit, registered on December 23rd, as soon as she got news of the meeting. She genuinely wanted to find out whether David Cameron's so called 'compassionate conservatism' and espoused commitment to community empowerment would place him at odds with a Council inclined towards wholesale disempowerment of large sections of the community. She received the following email on December 31st:

Dear ms cupit

Thank you for registering an interest and attendance for the Cameron Direct event on Tuesday. Due to security reasons we will let you know the venue on Monday monring. The event will start at 6.00 pm promptly and be complete by 7.30 pm at the latest.If there are any other people you think may be interested please do ask them to register. We will be taking registrations on Monday and Tuesday as well.

Yours sincerely

Tara Douglas-Home

Chairman, Hammersmith Conservative Association.

In other words: "You're in." Much pleased, as requested she encouraged others to register.

But nothing more arrived on the Monday. On January 5th (the day of the meeting) she received the following message:

"We’re sorry but due to an unprecedented level of applicants, unfortunately the Cameron Direct event on Tuesday is now full."

To add insult to injury, she found out that some people who had registered as late as January 4th (including some from outside the borough) had been accepted!

Nobody she spoke to on the day was able to give an explanation and they seemed rather vague about the general criteria for acceptance. Examples of conversations:

SC (on the phone to Young Man in local Tory office) "Can you tell me if you have me on your list to attend the meeting?"

YM "Hang on... let me see... (pause )... oh dear, unfortunately you are just below the bar. It's been very popular so there had to be a limit on participants and you are just below the bar."

SC "Can you tell me how people were selected?"

YM "Sorry, I don't know."

SC "Can you get someone who does know to give me a call please to discuss it? I'm very disappointed that I was told I could attend and now I'm not allowed to." YM "Yes of course, give me your number...". Five hours later...

SC "I've been waiting all day for that call."

YM "Aah yes, sorry, haven't been able to find anyone to call you."

SC "Out of interest, you said I was just below the bar. How far below was I?"

YM "Sorry?"

SC "When we talked before you looked at a list and said I was just below the bar. How far below? Am I on some sort of reserve list?"

YM "Oh no, I didn't actually look at a list. I just meant you hadn't been successful."

Later that evening...

SC (to a Tory Organiser outside the church) "Good evening. I live a hundred yards away and I registered on December 23rd. Can you tell me why I was excluded from this meeting?"

TO "Well it's been very popular. Even members of the party haven't been able to come, and it's only open to people from the constituency."

SC "Really, are you sure?"

TO "Yes. Only people with addresses in the constituency were allowed to attend."

SC "But we weren't asked for our addresses when we registered."

TO "Really?"

SC "Yes."

TO "Oh. Right. Hmmm. But it's definitely only people from the constituency in there."

SC "Really, are you sure?"

TO "Yes, absolutely."

SC "But there are people from Chiswick in there."

TO "Aaaah. Yes. There are people from Chiswick in there."

SC "I don't understand. Why did you lie to me?"

TO "I didn't lie. I made a mistake."

SC "Will you tell me your name?"

TO "No, I won't, because you've been rude."

SC (surprised) "No I haven't."

TO "Well, no you haven't, but they have." (pointing to two people nearby - who, incidentally hadn't been rude at all)

SC "Well as you know I've been very polite. Please tell me your name."

At this point it turned into that episode of Dad's Army where the foolish Private Pike gives away Captain Mainwairing's name to the dastardly Germans. One of the other Tory Organisers came along and and said "Alan, they need you inside..."

And later still ....

SC (To a second Tory Organiser outside the church) "Can you tell me how people were selected to attend this meeting?"

TO2 "Well, I think it was literally names in a hat."

SC (startled) "Really? Literally names in a hat?"

TO2 "Yes."

SC "So they actually put the names in a hat?"

TO2 "Oh no, I don't think they actually did that..."

So... baffling, frustrating and completely lacking in transparency. Most others in our group fared no better. Conspiracy, incompetence or just bad luck? Who knows, but we were not impressed, especially when the only alternative was for us to stand outside on such a bitterly cold night.

Young Tory whippersnappers tried to move us on, insisting they had the right, but we politely declined. Two police officers present didn't share their concern and simply watched from a distance with an amiable air. We thank them for their common sense.

But we are pleased to report that just one of us, Maxine Bayliss, managed to gain admission to the meeting and questioned Mr Cameron closely to find out his position on the Council's plans for our homes. You can listen to that interchange by going to the Tories' own video of the event, which unfortunately only shows their leader on camera and not the audience. Observers have suggested that one of the reasons for this is to prevent viewers from seeing how microphones were snatched from questioners to stop them from following up on their points. Maxine, however, is a determined woman, and hung on to her microphone long enough to pose some difficult questions to a man who was clearly somewhat hazy and misinformed on detail. Listen to the exchange (and watch his performance) here . [The clock runs backwards (a sign of the times?) so although it's about 14 minutes in you need to go to the 45.24 minute point.]

The gist of his response is threefold:

1. He repeatedly declares himself proud of this council and what it is doing. [This is a significant moment as this is the first time he has made his position clear]. What is notable is his lack of concern for the real fear and anxiety that is being expressed right in front of him.

2. When unable to wriggle out of tight corners he falls back on the line that all this nonsense is just 'black propaganda' by the Labour Party (yes he really said that).

3. His two-part 'get out' clause to anything unpopular: I believe in devolution of power to local councils [not local people you'll note]. What they do is nothing to do with me. If you don't like it either vote them out or stand for election yourself.

So... if you are just too darn lazy to stand for election yourself it's your own fault if you are mistreated by local governments that abuse their power. It's not the responsibility of national government to protect the rights and well-being of its citizens. And if you belong to a minority that simply cannot hope to take power from the over-powerful - well you're on your own. Not my problem guvnor!

It's worth listening to the question posed after Maxine's, where the questioner outlines with great care the increases in meals on wheels charges and introduction of £12.40 per hour home care charges by the Council (breaking their election pledge - be warned!), plus the disqualification of 1300 people from receiving support. In other words, the most vulnerable people in the borough have subsidised the much vaunted council tax cuts, paying hundreds of pounds for services so that the average person can save just £25 per year. Mr Cameron says he doesn't agree with the questioner. On what? The facts? They are well established. His response simply doesn't make sense.

You may also like to see an excerpt from Prime Minister's Question Time the following day, when Gordon Brown highlighted Cameron's extraordinary fudge at the Hammersmith meeting over Educational Maintenance Allowances (EMAs). Go to this link and watch at the 45.22 mark. Note Mr Cameron's expression - he really does look as if he's sucked a lemon.

So... H&F Council really is the darling of the Tory party and we anticipate the worst should they come to power in the national elections. It's quite clear that not only will we receive no protection of our homes but in all likelihood Mr Cameron will do everything he can to increase the power the Council has over our lives. Have a read of this article from the Independent if you need any convincing that far from having no policies David Cameron has many. And we live in fear of what they will mean for us all. Let us know if you were at the meeting and have a view on what you witnessed.

Happy New Year!

A very Happy New Year to our readers and supporters. We greatly appreciate the encouragement and unflagging support you have given us since we formed. Some of you have been tireless in keeping us in-the-know by uncovering key information and you deserve our special thanks. You know who you are!

We also wish our neighbours on other estates in Hammersmith & Fulham all the very best for 2010. We are well aware of the commendable fights they are putting up to save their homes and trust that they will have the success they deserve. More of this in the New Year.

Market rents for council housing?

We've noticed a puzzling contradiction in what Stephen Greenhalgh, the by now infamous Leader of H&F Council, has to say about rents for council homes such as ours. On the one hand, in the midst of a rather incoherent speech captured on film by the Guardian he acknowledges the prohibitive cost of renting in the private sector in this area:

..."private renting's £300 or £400 a week ... getting on the housing ladder's bloody difficult unless you're a millionaire."

At last! Something on which we agree. But without the swearing, no need for that Councillor. We teach our children otherwise.

Surely then, this revelation must have led him to the obvious conclusion: in order to promote truly mixed communities it's essential to continue providing relatively low cost social rented housing.

Yet in the document that outlines his chilling vision of the future for social housing, one of Greenhalgh's central proposals is to move social housing rents to market levels. In fact, he's so carried away with his big idea that in a truly inflationary fashion he moves in the space of a few pages from 'near market rents' to 'market rents', which are then touted shamelessly throughout the document. Probably on the grounds that if you say something often enough people may mistake it for truth.

So, at risk of pointing out the obvious, Mr Greenhalgh would like to charge people on our estate a rent of £300 - £400 per week.

Who could afford that? In what way would that help to fix supposedly 'broken' neighbourhoods? It would decrease opportunities to study, train or work and effectively cause rent poverty along the lines of fuel poverty with tenants spending vast amounts of their income on rent. Many people would be trapped on benefits (i.e. the tax payer would foot the bill) or forced to move out of the area.

Oh yes, now we see it, that's actually what they want, isn't it?

Fame at last

It's heartening to see that our story is getting out there and intelligent observers of the situation here in H&F are drawing their own conclusions, not only about our plight but about the questionable activities of the Council in general. We always enjoy the musings of Shepherds Bush blog and never more than here and here.

Have a look at this article in the Guardian. Do make sure to read the comments too - they seem to arise from a wide political spectrum, to put it mildly! You might also like to watch this film made by the Guardian. Sadly Stephen Greenhalgh refused to be interviewed and instead behaved rather bizarrely on camera. In contrast, residents from our estate made their case well. We've heard that Hollywood is showing an interest....

Business as usual

Hello folks. How's it going?

Normal service is resumed. We return refreshed and revitalised after our various summer sojourns in far flung Wales, Bognor, Paris and Ireland. The latter involved an impressively intrepid trek over land and sea with two children in tow. Carbon footprint? Barely a trace in the sand.

Okay, we didn't catch any planes this time round and only drove one car. But smugness is an unattractive trait. And just in case you get the wrong idea, we are not completely plane averse... if any of you jetsetters were thinking of whisking us off to Cannes in the South of France at taxpayers expense, go right ahead!

So what's new?

The footy season has started, the nights are drawing in, it's Strictly v X Factor, isn't tradition a wonderful thing?

And right on time the Council has honoured its tradition of ignoring H&F residents in favour of property speculators by pushing through a highly contentious planning application for the Goldhawk Industrial Estate.

To accommodate a new high density residential/commercial scheme, local successful businesses will be forced out, including Innocent Drinks and the Soundhouse Studios, one of London's busiest and most experienced recording studios and post-production facilities.

Residents put up a solid opposition, led by the Brackenbury Residents Association. They even employed a QC specialising in planning law to take apart the Council's dodgy case for pushing the application through.

But all to no avail, the considerable body of evidence and legitimate concern was ignored in favour of a planning report full of inaccuracies and bias. Read here for a thorough account of the whole sorry business - and note in particular that the standard allocation of affordable rented housing was cut to zero and the Section 106 funding was startlingly low. It seems the current economic climate is being used as an excuse to shaft anyone who stands in the way of this Council's blissful marriage to big business.

If they will do this, what chance for our council estates?

Tell us what you think. Is there anyone out there who still has the nerve to call this scaremongering?

There's more news but not tonight. Gotta go and practice that rumba before Match of the Day.

Queens Wharf Sold On

Queens Wharf, an empty office building on the riverside border of our estate, has been sold on.

This is troubling us because there are strong reasons to believe allegations that H&F Council offered our homes on the Queen Caroline Estate to the previous owner, Ira Rapp (Chief Exec of WestCity Plc) when he approached them about developing Queens Wharf. We have nothing against new homes being built but we would be foolish not to wonder whether any informal promises have sweetened the purchase of this site in mid recession. So our first two questions are:

1. What do A2Dominion mean when they say they are "working in partnership with the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham on the scheme"?

2. Have any of their partnership discussions involved the future of Queen Caroline Estate and if so, what exactly has been discussed or agreed?

On the A2Dominion web site they describe the Queens Wharf site as 'highly desirable', in an 'exclusive location' for their planned 'waterside apartments'. That's good to hear, we agree that this is a lovely location.

But wait a minute - their new partner has designated this neighbourhood as 'not decent'! Isn't that going to be somewhat confusing for prospective homeowners, especially as they will have to pass through our 'ghetto' estate to reach their new homes. Unless arriving by river of course.

Note that A2Dominion only estimate that they will include 30% 'affordable' housing in the proposed 100 apartments (which will surely have to be high rise or high density to fit 100 in?). Estimates are not the same as guarantees and often mysteriously change when it comes to final planning applications. And 'affordable' should not be confused with social rented. It almost certainly means shared ownership and in this costly part of London that is really not going to be an option for those of us who live here now.

When questioned by Dan Hodges of the Gazette as to whether social rented would be part of the equation, a representative of A2Dominion declined to answer on this (click on the newspaper to read the whole article). Yet other than that they seem to have a very clear idea of what they will be doing, even down to demolition and construction starting next year, despite not yet having gained planning permission. So, another question:

3. Will H&F Council require A2Dominion to include a reasonable proportion of truly affordable social rented housing in order to receive planning permission?

Just to illustrate why 'affordable' is a controversial concept, we went to A2Dominion's own Web site to work out the current cost of shared ownership properties in the area. We couldn't find comparable 'waterside apartments' so you'd need to add a fair bit to the following:

Example: One bedroom 4th floor flat in the Goldhawk Road area (resale) with a balcony but no garden:
£112,000 (40% share)
(Full market value: £280,000)
Monthly mortgage (estimate) £827.67
Monthly rent: £320.71
Monthly service charge: £75.35
That rounds up to a total of £1224 before bills, food, fares and other living essentials

+ legal fees, moving costs, council tax.
+ if a deposit is required by the mortgage company this could be 10% i.e. £11,200

For this property A2 Dominion stipulates:
Minimum single income: £32,046
Minimum joint income: £36,808
Minimum savings: £4,000

Yet more food for thought: we have also heard that it is difficult and pricey to obtain a mortgage for shared ownership properties. Indeed, it is not universally accepted that shared ownership is the best answer to the challenge of creating affordable housing, as highlighted in the Times. Buyers coming in at a 25% share often find themselves stuck and unable to move on when they change jobs or start a family. If any of our readers have direct experience of this do let us know.

Our remaining concern with new development is of course the same as for any new build: what provisions will be made to help the infrastructure of the area cope with the needs and demands of 100 new households - schools, transport, health care, parking and so on?

Grubby Politics

Every so often people ask us which political party is behind our campaign. The answer is simple - none. There is no-one behind us, we are not hapless puppets manipulated by some shadowy Svengali. We are residents who have joined together to resist the threat to our homes.

The Council would love to portray us like that of course. It's just nasty old Labour manipulating the thicko working classes for evil purposes.

As if people's lives aren't difficult enough... Council Leader Stephen Greenhalgh descended unannounced on our estate recently with wannabe politician Shaun Bailey and other acolytes. They knocked on doors to conduct what Bailey absurdly calls in his latest Conservative bulletin "a door to door survey session". Their purpose? Apparently "to reassure residents following the scaremongering by Labour Councillors and the MP for Ealing and Acton." There you go. It's just a Labour conspiracy. Phew.

Incidentally, aren't you meant to ask questions in a survey, not 'reassure' people? But let's not split hairs.

(Though someone really should have told Shaun that the 'scaremongering' accusations are a bit out of date since Mr Greenhalgh fessed up and some skilfully unearthed meeting notes confirmed the extent of Tory interest in his nightmare vision. Keep up Shaun.)

See the somewhat disturbing photo below of this intrusion into the peace of our 'not decent' neighbourhood.

CAPTION COMPETITION - please forward your caption for this photo. The best three will be published.

Lots of us were at work when they came so we were spared this alarming spectacle (though sadly not represented in their 'survey'). But we heard an amusing tale of one minion knocking on a front door only to have it slammed shut in his face by a resident furious with the plans to take away his home. They brought in the 'big gun', Cllr Greenhalgh, no doubt envisaging that no-one could refuse to talk to their Great Leader. Result? Door slammed shut again!

Not that we laughed of course...

But just to reiterate, as far as politics go we are not affiliated to any party. However, it's true that as the campaign has progressed it has become clear that an extreme right wing ideology lies behind the plans the Council has for us. It's not simply a question of money.

It's also true that we greatly appreciate the support and advice we have received from our ward councillors since we first approached them for help, after reading alarming headlines in local papers. Before anyone else was interested it was these Labour councillors who listened and gave us hope that at least somebody could treat us with respect. Okay, it's their job to do that, but we all know that some councillors don't do the jobs they are paid for.

In particular Stephen Cowan, leader of the opposition, has been tireless in his support. It was he who first gained evidence of the Council's shenanigans and details of the trip to Cannes via the Freedom of Information Act. This will not surprise the many borough residents that he has helped on all sorts of local issues that concern them, irrespective of their voting habits. I wonder if worried West Ken Estate residents are getting the same support from their local Conservative ward councillors?

So it was particularly grubby of Shaun Bailey to attack Labour councillors in his propaganda (sorry, bulletin) for their supposed 'abandonment' of us to 'hit the beaches'. Hard working people deserve a holiday with their families, for goodness sake.

Mr Bailey, have you any idea how ridiculous this petty point-scoring makes you look?

People on this estate know it's not the Labour councillors who have abandoned us.

The Devastating Story of the Ferrier Estate

H&F Council Leader Stephen Greenhalgh is fond of referring to the Ferrier Estate in Greenwich as an example of a forward thinking large scale estate redevelopment. He clearly thinks that what has happened there is a good thing.

However, the Ferrier tale, as reported by Shelter's ROOF magazine in October 2008, is a heartbreaking story. Tenants and homeowners alike have suffered terribly and their community has been destroyed forever, a result of either cynical deception or extreme incompetence on the Council's part.

Read for yourselves by clicking in turn on the pages below.

The Truth is Told in Parliament

MP Andy Slaughter has given a resounding speech in parliament highlighting the misinformation that has been peddled by the Council about their plans and exposing the extent of their nightmare vision.

"We are talking about something that was designed by the leader of Hammersmith council, who is the head of the Tories’ local government innovation unit, as a blueprint for the rest of the country. How do we know that? We know it because he published a document earlier this year called “Principles for Social Housing Reform”. We also know it because, at the council’s expense, he held a round-table discussion with Tory Front Benchers, other senior Tory politicians and, shamefully, local government officers on 3 March that agreed to the most extraordinary blueprint for the future. Market rents for all housing; no security of tenure; no right to buy; no duty to house the homeless; no capital investment at all in social housing—is this really the future for housing under a Tory Government?"

Click here for the full speech. Note that he challenges the Tory front bench (i.e. David Cameron) to either support or reject the plans for social housing that Stephen Greenhalgh has recommended for the whole of the UK.

See Dave Hill's Guardian blog for further comment. He too wonders about the secrecy involved and David Cameron's position in all this. Thank goodness for the Freedom of Information Act and enterprising members of the public.

Well, Mr Cameron? Now is the time to make good on your speeches about the importance of community.

You've Been Frameworked

Recently Hammersmith and Fulham Council published a Local Development Framework (LDF) document, outlining extensive plans for the borough including plans to turn estates like Queen Caroline into 'Decent Neighbourhoods'... apparently we are currently not 'decent'. Thanks for that.

They will use this as justification for demolishing our homes.

I'll go back to that in a minute. But first, the LDF. Comments had to be in by 17th July. No doubt lots of you who live or work in the borough sent your comments in. What's that you say? You didn't? Why was that? Could it be that....

a) You didn't know about the consultation because it was poorly publicised?

b) You managed to read about the LDF consultation in the very tiny writing on the back of one of the Council's self congratulatory leaflets and dutifully went as they instructed to the Library to get a copy of the LDF. But the Hammersmith Library staff knew nothing about it. You tried again. Same result. You retired home, defeated. (Was somebody secretly filming? Are they sitting at home laughing uproarously at your misadventure?)

c) You went online to try and give your comments but found the procedure of registering and then finding your way through a lengthy, jargon-ridden document and a tortuous, ill-designed comments process both baffling and exhausting. You gave up, humiliated, after a couple of hours. (Did a family member film you sliding off your chair and make a few bucks on the sly?).

d) You don't care about the borough and they can bulldoze it if they like. (Ah, the hysteria as your home crashes to the ground).

Three of the above happened to interested, sensible people who really did want to pass comment on the LDF. People who know how to use computers, find out information, stand up for themselves. So how much harder will it have been for those with no Internet access, mobility problems, sight impairment or communication difficulties? Those of us who went to the library were going to pick up copies for neighbours but you know how that went. (Even Harry Hill couldn't find anything to laugh about there.)

Shameful.

If you'd like to read the LDF + comments please click here.

So where was I? Oh yes, I don't live in a decent neighbourhood. The Council says that a series of 'decent neighbourhood principles' are not achieved here. These are quoted below with comments.

The Council says we are NOT:

1. "A clean and safe neighbourhood located in an area rich in opportunity." What? Have they been here? This is a pleasant, easily accessible area between the riverside, transport and local shops. Non-residents walk, jog and cycle through the estate all the time. We are a clean neighbourhood (though the recent cutbacks by the Council of the caretaking services have had an impact) and close to businesses, shops, transport, leisure etc. i.e. an area rich in opportunity.

2. "A housing mix by type, size and tenure to attract people on a range of incomes." This already exists. A large proportion of leaseholders complement the tenants. There is a mix of young and old and a large proportion of working residents (both paid work and voluntary work). The one thing that we need more of in the local area is larger family properties but knocking down other people's homes is hardly a reputable (or decent) way to achieve this.

3. "Residential development that is predominantly low or medium rise (e.g. 3-6 storeys), with gardens and shared amenity space in street based layouts." All but two of the buildings here are 3 - 4 storeys. All either lead directly onto streets or onto paths within a few feet of streets. There are very well used childrens' play areas and green spaces.

4. "Well designed buildings with active streets, that respect their surroundings." What does this mean?? Where is your plain English? Our buildings are solid and afford a fair amount of privacy because they are not too high density. The flats are a reasonable size. We simply need the Council to finish the Decent Homes programme, for which they have already received Government funding. Are the streets active? Well people use them a lot and stop to chat on them a lot, I suppose this means they are active.

5. "A range of shops, local services, leisure and other facilities within walking distance that meet the needs of a mixed community at different stages of peoples' lives." See Point 1 above. M&S, Primark, Kings Mall, the Broadway Centre, 3 tube lines, bus station, Riverside Studios, Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith Apollo, primary school, churches, restaurants, GP surgery, riverside pubs, after school centre.... all within a 5 - 10 minute walk or less. Add to that Charing Cross Hospital, all the services on Fulham Palace Road and Fulham Football Club all just 15-20 minutes walk away.

6. "Employment & training opportunities for a range of skills and attainment levels." There are plenty of employment opportunities in all the above mentioned amenities and businesses. As a working person I don't know so much about training opportunities locally. I'm sure it would be good to provide more though. It would do more for unemployed people locally than turfing them out of their homes.

7. "Low levels of crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour." I don't know the crime figures but I do know that I and my neighbours do not feel afraid to leave our homes at any time of day or night and judging by the amount of non-residents that walk through the estate at all times, neither do they.

8. "A street pattern linking one place to another, encouraging walking routes through areas." There are interlinked paths and roads throughout this estate, all well used and enhanced by trees and areas of greenery.

9."Satisfaction with the local townscape, public realm and environment, and its upkeep; no wasted or uncared for land." We are pretty happy with how it is apart from the impact of the Westway, but that is not going anywhere no matter what. What exactly is meant by wasted land? I worry that this actually means'not built on' when in fact the combination of residential property and open space is what makes this such a pleasant area in which to live and work. Of course it could be improved and we'd love the chance to participate in that - as residents we know better than anyone what's needed.

"Does it matter what the ruling Councillors think about the estate?" I hear you ask. Sticks and stones and all that...

Unfortunately yes, because they will use it as an excuse to raze our perfectly good, decent homes to the ground. They say they want to create a 'mixed community' in a 'decent neighbourhood'. It won't include us. NONE of the plans talk about moving residents out temporarily and then moving them in again. This is a chilling omission because in other parts of the LDF they do at least express an intent to do this on other estates (though only in part). But here - no.

We are decent people living in a decent neighbourhood. Please help us save our homes.

Goldrush

"There's gold in dem dere hills!" used to be the cry of prospectors in Gold Rush America.

It seems that the call has now gone out once again.

Over the last few years there has been so much development and proposed development in this small borough of ours it's almost impossible to keep up with it.

Of the 32 London Boroughs we are one of the smallest but also one of the most densely populated. So with that in mind it would be foolish not to have a well thought out, clear vision of how best to balance the needs of those people and businesses that already reside here in Hammersmith and Fulham and those who want to come here, considered against the issue of limited square footage.

Unfortunately it could be seen that the planners are less sympathetic to existing residents and their desire not to have major developments right in their backyard than to the prospectors coming over the hill guns a' blazing. For example:

The Council gave the go ahead for 10 homes to be squeezed into an area between Percy and Boscombe Road.

Planning permission has been sought to build 56 houses and 11 business units on the small business park on the corner of Brackenbury Road and Goldhawk Road. Residents have argued that the proposed buildings will directly affect their light, not to mention the fact that there will be a considerable increase in traffic and noise in that area.

Again, there's the Armadillo or Strawberry or the Great Big Ugly Glass Structure (whatever you want to call it) that is planned for Hammersmith Grove. Those that opposed the site were called 'Nimbys' by a Conservative Councillor.

It seems like every week there's an annoucement of yet another major development in this tiny borough. Last month transformation plans were announced for the tower blocks on the Edward Woods Estate. Coincidentally, these tower blocks overlook the new multi-billion pound Westfield Shopping centre.

Residents have been complaining for years about the condition of the estate with no response from the Council. Suddenly, not only will new cladding be added but penthouse apartments will be built on these tower blocks, selling for the modest sum of £675,000. Bet the lifts will always be working once they are built.

I spoke to a friend who lives on the Edward Woods Estate, she knew nothing about it. But I bet there was 'extensive consultation' with residents.

No wonder the prospectors - sorry, property speculators - have moved in, there's millions to be made in this here borough.

• In 2008 Prupim and Hammersmith and Fulham Council sold the Broadway Chambers in Hammersmith Broadway for £12.5m to Sapcote Developers.
  
• Development Securities recently won permission for the aforementioned Strawberry scheme in Hammersmith Grove expected to cost £250m.
  
• There's the £180m revamp of King Street by Grainger and Helical Bar.
  
• Westcity Property fund in a 50-50 partnership with Byrne Estate purchased Queens Wharf for a reputed £32m, that's where the threat to my home comes from.
  
• Not to mention the whopping 1.5bn it is said to have cost to create the Westfield Shopping experience.
  

And where there are property speculators there are 'The Consultants', a shadowy group of people, highly trained in the ways of consultin'. They ride into town known by none, except they usually turn out to be the wife, husband, brother-in-law or old school friend of the head of department that needs the consultin'. But I'm sure they must be worth every penny.

Why just the other day it was revealed that Hammersmith and Fulham Council were going to spend £300,000 on consultants to consult about how best to move in the bulldozers into the West Kensington Estate and how best to get away with it... or did they say 'transport consequences' and 'legal advice'. £300.000! But don't forget it's only a 'proposal'.

It seems that 'stack 'em high' is no longer just the phrase used by a certain US supermarket chain, it seems to be the byword for housing developments in this borough. Unfortunately this council has forgotten the rest of the phrase 'and sell em cheap'.... or even reasonably priced.

The speculators are in town and coming to an area near you. The wagons are circling.

The recession seems to be doing the job that those in the planning office should have done. But this is a game for these guys - they know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, they know when to walk away and they know when to run (courtesy of Kenny Rogers) and trust me they are just sitting this round out, waiting for a better hand or in other words an upturn in the market.

Please support us. Hands Off Our Queen Caroline Homes.

Keep an eye on your local papers, look at the planning applications, Hammersmith and Fulham is up for sale, bit by bit, estate by estate, road by road, property by property, brick by ... (okay you get the picture). Property speculators know it, the Council knows it, the property media know it. Don't believe me?

'In recent years, under Stephen Greenhalgh’s leadership, Hammersmith and Fulham has become a beacon council that is most definitely open for business. '....... Steven Norris (Former Conservative MP) 27.3.09 Property Week.Com

"Hi-yo, Silver, away!"





The Lone Ranger

Spielberg, are you out there?

We have had lots of support via email and comments on our blog and we'd like to say a big thank you for that. Our support comes from within our community and from outside too. It is very heartening to read some of the comments people have left - and moving too. A particularly poignant message was left by Janice, whose family and neighbours were forced to leave a 'close knit and caring community' many years ago. Read it for yourself: click on the link and scroll down to 'Comments'.

It got us to wondering, do any of you lovely readers have film making skills and equipment that you could help us with? We plan to use film to show the reality of life here in our community. It's time we busted the myth that it's not a decent neighbourhood (according to our charming Council) once and for all.

Just to give you a taste of what a great place this is to live, here's a photo across the estate to Hammersmith Bridge, taken in the February snow. Okay, it's a bit unseasonal. But lovely, isn't it?

Get those creative juices going - get in touch by phone 07505 982526 or email us if you'd like to help us tell our story.

Blurred Vision?

We promised that we would provide a summary of the policy paper co-authored by the Council Leader, Stephen Greenhalgh: 'Principles for Social Housing Reform'. The paper proposes draconian changes to housing law and to the future of social housing.

It makes highly contentious blanket statements about social housing, when it must be clear to any right minded observer that there is no one 'truth' about such a broad topic. It declares social housing, and estates in particular, to be a blight on local neighbourhoods and a drain on taxpayers' resources. This is at a time when the biggest blight on all of us has been the greed of wealthy bankers and their associates!

The paper is based on two major assumptions:

1. That social housing is a problem.

2. That tenants, i.e. those who rent, contribute less to an area than homeowners:

"Residents with a stake in the place where they live, however small, will care more about what happens to their homes and in their neighbourhoods."

What?? Where is the justification for such an outrageous statement? A credible policy proposal should present sound evidence for such prejudicial assertions but we see none. It illustrates, yet again, the blinkered views of the man leading a Council that is meant to serve us. It is, yet again, deeply insulting to the thousands of council tenants who take pride in their homes and their neighbourhoods. Who could possibly think that a mortgage is the only thing that gives people a stake in their homes and communities?

It is impossible for us to know whether Cllr Greenhalgh really believes in his distorted view of social housing tenants or whether this is simply a cynical exercise to discredit and disenfranchise us. And it's hard to say which would be worse - a misguided, incompetent Council with unintentionally warped views of a large sector of its residents or a Council intent on carrying out policies deliberately designed to exclude this same sector of the population. In many ways, though, this is irrelevant as the outcome will be the same for us no matter what the intent.

To the non council tenants reading this I would ask you this: please use your intelligence to discriminate between unsubstantiated opinion and well evidenced fact. Don't just believe what you are told, you are better than that. A lot of you will have parents or grandparents who have lived in Council housing. Did they not look after their homes and their neighbourhoods? Were they work-shy burdens on society or people of integrity, doing the best they could for their families and their communities?

This Council is using the language of empowerment whilst plotting to dispossess people of their homes and their communities. If they succeed it will herald an era of social division that we have not seen since before the Second World War.

Of course there are council estates around the country that need radical rebuilding and a complex array of interventions. But not ours. Undoubtedly there will be some people on our local estates (much as anywhere else) who need focused support and encouragement to enter the job market. So provide it. Provide adequate child care and training opportunities. In what way does kicking people out of their homes and depriving them of their rights empower them or help them into work?

The only thing wrong with Queen Caroline Estate is the Council's neglect. They have been sitting on the Decent Homes money (already provided by central Government) for years now - and incidentally have made a tidy profit. They have left half of us with leaking, draughty windows and astronomical fuel bills as a result. Many residents view this as a cynical exercise to run down the estate and demoralise us. Not to mention the carbon footprint! Come on Councillors, it's happening on your watch. Do your job properly - it's what you are paid for.

The Greenhalgh paper argues that in the long term the Government should:

1. Restrict the number of social homes that are built and reject a duty to house anyone but the most vulnerable.

2. Abolish secure tenancies in social housing.

3. Allow councils to move to market rents.

4. Abolish the right to buy and hand power back to local Councils to decide who is given permission to buy their own home. (Well hello Big Brother!)

5. Change the law so that Councils can discharge their duty to the homeless by housing them on short term contracts in the private rented sector.

These solutions to the perceived 'problem' of social housing would ensure that ultimately social housing would all but cease to exist, in order that:

"ultimately, Council and RSLs (registered social landlords) should be able to repay any Government debt and move to a situation where they operate their housing portfolio at a reasonable profit."

There we have it. Profit. Knew we'd get there in the end.

More Media Coverage

Good news, our plight and the wider implications of the Greenhalgh approach have been highlighted in the media. See the coverage in the Evening Standard, the Guardian and the Mirror.

It is also worth having a careful read of the NewStart article which highlights some of the discussions that have taken place. Note that Stephen Greenhalgh (the Council Leader) is quoted as saying that "We want to attract people who are very rich."

Note also the final paragraph:

"The redevelopment of the Ferrier estate in Greenwich began earlier this year. Social housing residents there were initially promised replacement housing on the estate, but in the final development plans the majority of new homes are private."

It is always worth reading Guardian writer Dave Hill's blog. He is an incisive and intelligent writer. Also worth signing up for his newsletter Metropolitan Lines.

What is noticeable is how many commentators are making links with the Dame Shirley Porter 'social cleansing' scandal of the 1980's.

Our Council's logo says "H&F, putting residents first".

Really??

Welcome to Our Ashcroft Square Neighbours

We were delighted to notice that our neighbours on nearby Ashcroft Square are also making their voices heard. Have a look at their blog.

A big welcome to you all on Ashcroft Square Estate - we must do lunch!!

See For Yourself

You can now view the coverage of our story on the BBC2 Politics Show of June 14th. Watch it and see the discrepancies and misinformation in the Council's story.

The first part shows worried residents being interviewed on our estate.

">

The second part shows our local Labour Councillor, Stephen Cowan, and Nick Johnson, Chief Executive of H&F Homes, being interviewed. Members of the the ruling Conservative Council were 'unavailable'.


">

See for yourself and make your own mind up as to whether we are 'scaremongering'. Ask yourself this: in our position, would you feel safe?

A Lesson in Manners?

On the evening of June 24th a number of residents attended the Council Meeting at the Town Hall, having heard that one of the Labour Councillors, Lisa Nandy, would be proposing a motion censuring the views expressed about council tenants by Stephen Greenhalgh in his chilling proposals for the reform of social housing, published by right wing think tank Localis. It was an illuminating but depressing experience.

The special motion was as follows:

"That this Council:

Rejects the offensive, damaging and false portrayal of social housing tenants in the paper 'Principles for Social Housing Reform' published by right wing think tank Localis.

Firmly rejects proposals which seek to deny decent, secure homes to those who need them.

Further condemns such a crude attempt to disguise deeply unpopular proposals to demolish local homes and communities by using the language of rights and empowerment.

Agrees with Shelter that people are empowered by genuine choice and security and asserts that people are disempowered by ill-thought out, stereotypical and stigmatising papers such as this.

Resolves that funding Localis £8,000 a year at a time when Hammersmith and Fulham Council is cutting vital services to local people is a shameful waste of public money that will cease with immediate effect."

We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

(£8,000? That was something we didn't know about before. Is that why they've started charging for home care? They've emptied the coffers supporting right wing think tanks?).

In support of the motion, Councillor Jean Campbell (the only council tenant on the Council) spoke movingly about the sadness she feels to hear people like her neighbours on White City Estate so grossly mis-represented and stigmatised by Stephen Greenhalgh: described in his paper as living in "broken neighbourhoods" and "ghettos" where a "dependency culture and culture of entitlement predominates". In contrast Jean Campbell described her community thus:

"My community on the White City is a vibrant one. My neighbours include people working in health care, people working as police officers or people who are simply doing their best to bring up their kids and look after their families."

What was notable about Jean Campbell was not just what she said but how she said it. She challenged the views of the Tory Councillors but spoke to them with respect. She persevered with dignity despite shameful behaviour from the other side of the chamber, reminiscent of school days (though with touches of Animal Farm).

Stephen Greenhalgh in particular spent his time ostentatiously misbehaving: noisily banging papers on the table, whispering and sniggering behind his hand to his chum Nicholas Botterill, closing his eyes in feigned (or perhaps real??) sleep. He behaved like this whenever members from the Labour Group were talking and seemed wholly proud of himself.

Others were as bad. When Labour Councillor Stephen Cowan, supporting Jean Campbell, pointed out that White City is already a mixed community with BBC workers amongst its residents he was heckled by Conservative Councillor Jane Law, who declared with a look of absolute disdain that "People from the BBC don't live on White City!" Clearly this concept was too horrific for her to contemplate. Poor thing, she looked like she'd had quite a shock.

Worst of all was the smugness, posturing and political point scoring at every opportunity, to the exclusion of intelligent debate. Even in full knowledge that members of the public were present these Conservative councillors did nothing to acknowledge us and our genuine concerns except by deliberately repeating the insulting language of the Greenhalgh report.

Yes, they knew we were there and yes, they seemed determined to show their contempt.

Are they really so certain of the electorate that they can afford to behave in this way?

Jean Campbell finished by asking Stephen Greenhalgh to look her in the eye and answer three questions:

• Does he intend to lobby for an end of secure tenancies?


• Will he provide a legal guarantee that all the social housing he demolishes will be replaced like for like - no catch?


• Will he apologise to me and the thousands of council house residents like me for his simple caricaturing of our lives?

He made no attempt to answer despite repeated requests. Why was that, Councillor Greenhalgh?

Instead Councillor Lucy Ivimy was chosen to give a long winded, meaningless answer. She may be Cabinet Member for Housing but was nevertheless an odd choice to reply to a motion opposing the stigmatisation of council tenants, given her history. Few people have had the dubious honour of being outed by the Daily Mail over allegations of racism towards tenants, but she's managed it.

Thankfully we did not witness the same level of braying contempt for the political process from the Labour Group. If we had we might have lost all faith in the idea of decent people in politics. (We are not making a party political statement here, simply reporting what we observed on the night).

We are grateful to Lisa Nandy, Jean Campbell and their colleagues for standing up in that hostile environment to speak for ordinary people like us.

The motion was voted down, of course, but the words that were spoken remain.

If you think there is even the slightest exaggeration in this article do go along to a Council Meeting to see for yourself. It won't be the happiest evening of your life but it will be an education.