Forum Topic

Housing Key to Hammersmith Election

There has been some coverage recently in the Guardian about this issue which suggests that Tory housing policy in the borough is radical, controversial and likely to be decisive in a tight election contest in the local constituency.Looking through what Tory plans are I can't really see any difference between what is happening in LBHF and what is happening in LBEaling. In the latter the South Acton estate is getting a refurb with the mix of properties being changed to provide more part and fully privately owned property. Rather than being controversial this seems to be attracting broad support across the community and has not generated any significant opposition from the local Labour party.Can somebody explain to me what precisely is the difference between what is happening in the two boroughs.

Andy Jones ● 5579d18 Comments

Could you tory councillors please tell us if it is true that all off road council homes are being sold off when they become vacant? [This is what my friends in the housing department tell me]and that you are knocking down a perfectly fine west kensington housing estate that has been home to generations of people, a third of the homes in Sinclair House and that there are NO plans to demolish the homes in Queen Caroline street.

Dan Baldwin ● 5402d

This is exactly what would happen.  Put the rents up so that people cannot afford them and they will then be offered a move (out of London) or lose their housing.  Those with rents in between these figures will have more money paid out in housing benefit so then there will be a complaint that x amount of housing benefit is being paid and has now gone up.  This was a very clever way of getting around the local problem of moving people out of London as the rents mentioned mainly exist here - something like 240.00 for a flat and 400.00 per house, I think, was the figure mentioned.  Market rents are much higher than this in Hammersmith and several other places.  Most of the flats sold to previous tenants at knock down prices were then either sold on to property developers or kept by the owners and rented out.  These new rents are far higher but the properties have still gone, mostly, to social tenants anyway so that is why there is more money paid in housing benefits. They should have made private landlords lower their rents rather than raising council rents as we all know rents in London are just ludicrous i.e. someone paying 150.00 to rent a double room with shared bathroom with grotty living conditions.

Tina Pemberton ● 5407d

I'm surprised with the lack of comment anywhere on the coalition proposals to reduce the ceiling on payments that can be made to private landlords by tenants on housing benefit. This is likely to have a far more fundamental impact on the social diversity of inner London particularly in an are like Hammersmith.There would appear to no longer any need for H&F Council to actively gerrymander in the borough as this ruling will do their work for them.

Paul Corcoran ● 5416d

That's nonsense. The Conservatives have had three years to provide the necessary "reassuring detail" (the term used by the Guardian) and haven't done so. You can watch the Guardian's video here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/video/2009/oct/09/housing-london-tory-socialIt is not good enough to use terms like "lies" and "scare stories". As the Administration: the Conservatives are obliged to tell residents what's happening with their homes. They have refused to do so despite being pressured by the media, the Opposition and the public. In the process the Tories have run scared from giving interviews to any press on this. Request range from the BBC, the Guardian and even a student journalist. That’s because anyone with the most basic line of questioning ability would be able to get to further expose what's going on. One thing the Tories are not is stupid. So they simply refused all enquiries as you can read here:http://thecowanreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-did-h-council-openly-mislead.htmlIt is perplexing (although maybe not) that we have to wait for the local elections to get any response from a Tory local politician and even then it falls well short of what is required.People will make their own minds up on the overwhelming evidence that’s now in the public realm.RegardsCllr. Stephen Cowan (Lab)Leader of the OppositionThe London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Stephen Cowan ● 5486d

To clarify, we are not 'planning to demolish hundreds of family homes and rehouse people out of the borough'. All the talk of residents being moved out to places like Barking etc are lies and scare stories devised by an increasing desperate Labour Party. It is absolute and utter rubbish.

Cllr Andrew Johnson ● 5486d

YES....You are planning to demolish hundreds of family homes and rehouse people out of the borough. Shirley Porter anybody?

Dan Baldwin ● 5486d

This Hammersmith CON is Shirley Porter. A friend of mine [a Hammersmith housing officer] has been told that their housing is to be demolished and that they will be rehoused in Dagenham.'HOPE', 'CHANGE'.... CaMORON is no Obama. They are the same old selfish party with the same old tired faces with Teresa May huffing and puffing in the background in her knackered old scuffed 1990's heals. A DISGRACE.

Dan Baldwin ● 5486d

The latest issue of Private Eye features the local Conservatives, pointing out that the demolition of homes seems to be concentrated in marginal wards and is reminiscent of Shirley Porter. The suggestion is that the district auditor will have to act.The point that occurs to me is that these plans in the short term are likely to work against the Conservatives as if residents are being shunted out of the borough they will vote en masse for Labour. If this was about gerrymandering these plans would have been put into action on May 7th.

Andy Jones ● 5493d

The Leader of the Council argues for a move to market rents in a policy paper he wrote which you can view here:http://www.localis.org.uk/images/Localis%20Principles%20for%20Social%20Housing%20Reform%20WEB.pdfIt's said to be highly influential with David Cameron and Grant Shapps, the Conservatives Shadow Housing Minister. The BBC's Politics Show questioned Shapps about a move to market rents and he confirmed this would be Tory policy - should they win the General Election.Meanwhile, the question is how can you re-housed the 3500 people whose homes have been offered to property speculators if the Administration cuts back on the numbers of genuinely affordable homes to buy and only allows the building of a very few affordable homes to rent when forced to do so by government legislation or by Ken Livingstone (up until 2008 when he lost to Boris Johnson)? Obviously you can't and the Council knows this which is why it only promises to "offer" the displaced residents a new home in the borough instead of guaranteeing a new one, like-for-like.In practice, people will be offered a property - but may be gazumped by someone else, may find they can't afford it, may dispute that it's like-for-like or may even not like any aspect of it. The only new affordable homes being built on a large scale are in the Thames Gateway and Stratford - with smaller patches of development elsewhere.  A majority of the displaced residents will be forced to look elsewhere.I've put this to the Administration and senior officers and asked them to assure me it's not true. They haven't. They have been disingenuous at best. Their choice of language in any assurance is worth study. This instance will give you a flavour of the slipperiness we've been dealing with:http://thecowanreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-did-h-council-openly-mislead.htmlI think we have a duty to ensure that people's rights are protected and the Council deals with them fairly. It is a puzzles to me why the Council has refused to do this - especially as they have been aware of many of these concerns for the last three years.RegardsCllr. Stephen Cowan (Labour)The Leader of the OppositionThe London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Stephen Cowan ● 5498d

The more I look at this issue the more it seems to me that the Tories are simply in the process of upgrading existing housing stock for the benefit of social housing tenants.There is no evidence that council tenants are being shifted out of the borough and although some of the more extreme of the local Tories would like to see a move to market rents this isn't legal at the moment.

Ellen Kearney ● 5498d

Just look at the disgrace of social housing in West Kensington. Looks like Shirley Porter is now calling the shots in this borough.

Dan Baldwin ● 5514d

This comment by Karen Buck MP on the subject is well worth checking outhttp://bit.ly/dee6YL

Karen Cooper ● 5530d

I respectively think you've reached the wrong conclusion. I don't represent Ealing and do not know the full details of what's happening there. I have since found out a little more, as I said I would, but understand that it is a work in progress and much is still to be decided but am not in a position to advise on Ealing or any other local authority's situation. I suggest that you take this up with Ealing's councillors and make your own detailed comparisons. I'll set out what's happening in LBHF to aid this.Obviously I am not against regenerating estates if it's necessary and is done right. That's not what's happening in LBHF.In short, it is clear that there are two aspects to the Conservative Administration's proposals to knock six estates across Hammersmith, Fulham and Shepherds Bush. Firstly, they want to realise the revenue from the sale of the land currently occupied by people's council homes. This is Tory policy out of other Conservative run borough's longstanding play books and is also referred to in a policy paper written by the leader of the council. The second reason is old fashioned gerrymandering.Next we come to the rights enjoyed by current residents and what will happen if their homes are demolished. The Conservative Administration is refusing to guarantee that residents will have:* A straight 'Yes' or 'No' vote on whether they agree for their neighbourhood to be demolished. Instead they say residents will be "full involved" indicating that there will be some vague form of "consultation" that will no doubt be fixed to back the Tories' plans.* A right to return to their neighbourhood and live on the new scheme being built in place of their original home* The same number of affordable units available - across all tenures such as rented accommodation as the Tories demolish* The same rent - the leader of the council is arguing for a move to market rents* the same secure tenancy - the leader of the council is arguing for an end to this and a move to new 6 month shorthold tenancies* that council homeowners will not be out of pocket or forced to move out of the borough. Indeed, LBHF officers are already urging council homeowners to move further out of London.There's plenty more which you can read on my website - the Cowan Report. But none of this activity strikes me as qualifying as regeneration. Indeed, I am surprised at the level of secretiveness and dishonesty practiced by those involved.Clearly, it is my duty to defend the rights of my constituents in this borough, which is what I and my colleagues are doing. If we win the next local elections on May 6th we will stop these Tory plans but we have been fighting these proposals well before there was any election spotlight.I am not able to go into any detail about what's happening elsewhere but hope this information helps you make your own judgement.RegardsCllr. Stephen CowanLeader of the Opposition (Lab)The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Stephen Cowan ● 5547d

No response. This is tending to confirm my original suspicion that South Acton residents matter less for political reasons and there is no practical difference between what LBE and LBHF are doing.

Andy Jones ● 5548d

Oh, sorry. I'll check that out.Regards

Stephen Cowan ● 5569d

Thanks for the links but they don't answer my original question. Why do your Labour colleagues in Ealing borough seem so sanguine about a Conservative housing policy which, on the face of it, is more or less identical?

Andy Jones ● 5569d

If you follow the links, these two videos will give you an idea what’s happening with housing here in Hammersmith and Fulham:http://www.youtube.com/user/thecowanreport#p/u/0/3tV7oK0Olvk And this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/video/2009/oct/09/housing-london-tory-social RegardsCllr. Stephen CowanLabour Leader of the OppositionThe London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Stephen Cowan ● 5576d

Andy Slaughter is the one making all the noise about it - he's not bother about what is happening in South Acton because it won't be in his constituency after the boundary changes.

Ellen Kearney ● 5578d