NEWS & INFO
11 September, 2020 | By: Dominic Brady
11 September, 2020 | By: Dominic Brady
THE BALLOT
The ballot procedure for residents was introduced in 2018 by Mayor Sadiq Khan and requires that Housing Associations and Councils seeking Greater London Authority funding for demolition must undertake a ballot of residents and proceed only if the majority are in favour.
The ballot was brought forward by One Housing who are seeking funding from the Mayor of London to demolish the two estates as part of the Camden Goods Yard development, a joint venture partnership with the controversial housing developer Countryside. Countryside are against residents ballots, saying that: “if they were to go ahead, the mayor should have the ability to override a ‘no’ vote.”
The Mayor’s guidance states: “regeneration should only go ahead with majority resident support based on full and transparent consultation.”
” and “a policy requiring positive ballots means some estate regeneration schemes may not go ahead”.
As a joint residents ‘steering’ group, resident representatives negotiated tirelessly with One Housing for nearly 3 years over many long meetings. We tried everything we could to get the best possible Landlord Offer and clarity on exactly what One Housing were offering.
Now that the ballot been a decisive vote against demolition, One Housing have started conducting a review of residents to find out why we voted the way we did. Their actions are almost certainly paving the way to begin the whole process again and have another ballot.
It’s inconceivable that any such review would have taken place had the ballot been in favour of demolition, rather One Housing would not have hesitated to accept the outcome as a mandate to forge ahead with demolition.
The ballot result was attained despite the numbers of eligible voting residents being strategically reduced as One Housing moved people out with ‘assisted transfers’ ahead of the ballot and replaced them with short term tenants who cannot vote. There are several homes from each estate that have been vacated in this way.
The new families occupying these homes should be offered secure tenancies after a year, as their current situation creates insecurity and discriminates against them unfairly
ONE HOUSING
Although One Housing are registered as a Not For Profit Charity, Richard Hill their CEO earns £206,000 a year and One Housing need to keep expanding and developing in order to repay loans from International banks and justify inflated salaries and financial failings. This approach of maximising profits is incompatible with resident’s best interests, forcing us to have to fight for our rights.
One Housing have been downgraded by the Regulator of Social Housing, citing poor decision-making problems as well as serious problems with managing their own finances.
The expectation that residents should continue engaging with One Housing over the future of our homes after having voted against demolition and following three years of intense negotiations, is unjust and destabilising. It is hugely time consuming for the residents and has a very detrimental effect on family and community life.
One Housing must fulfil their duties as our landlord by repairing and refurbishing our homes, developing more robust anti-social behaviour strategies and prioritising the transfer of overcrowded households to more suitable accommodation.
They should stop using these as excuses to tear down our community and introduce semi privatisation.
One Housing insisted on pushing through with the ballot, despite our repeated requests for them to delay, supported by our MP Kier Starmer and our Councillors. In response to our pleas prior to the ballot, they said: “We firmly believe that it is only right and fair, that all tenants of Juniper Crescent and Gilbeys Yard, now have the opportunity to vote for or against the regeneration proposals; and the ballot will proceed on Monday 22nd June. We have already delayed twice, and another delay would cause further uncertainty and confusion for residents.”
Following the result of the ballot they have now written to us saying: “We are disappointed with the result but do realise that decisions about your homes and future in such uncertain and difficult times are hard to make. We understand that many of you felt that there were aspects of the proposal which you would have liked to have had more time to discuss with us, in order to make a fully informed choice. Over the coming months we will be spending time with you to understand the concerns you may have about the regeneration proposals and how we can address these. Following this engagement, we will then decide whether to propose new regeneration plans for both estates.”
Clearly, One Housing will continue to move the goalposts as they need to in order to push through with demolition. This is why it is vital to hold them to account and ensure that they respect the results of the ballot.
We call on One Housing to respect and accept the results of the ballot which voted against demolition, fulfil their duties as a social housing landlord and look after their residents by refurbishing and retrofitting our homes.