|
|
 |
| |
HOMES SALE HAMMERING
Housing bosses come under fresh attack after latest auction
BATTERED and besieged, the Town Hall’s housing department was heading towards crisis last night (Wednesday) as it was hit by an explosive list of grievances emanating from Camden’s estates.
In a hectic week for the Liberal Democrats running the borough’s council homes, tenants and council staff fiercely challenged them over:
* selling more council homes on the private market.
* failing to co-operate in a campaign for government investment.
* sacking a quarter of the borough’s caretakers
* decommissioning homeless hostels.
While tenants spent Monday urging the Lib Dems to agree to a moratorium on selling any more council homes, Town Hall chiefs had actually spent the day totting up how much it made from its latest auction – a batch of five homes sold to private developers.
Controversially, the takings included the sale of a house in Finchley Road which was not in desperate need of refurbishment and was perfect for a family on the housing waiting list. Councillors are now facing calls to work with tenants or risk losing votes.
Sold for £1.5m – to the man in Gucci shoes
Caretakers’ pledge ? Frantic bids for prime property in ‘good condition’ ? Buyer told: ‘Go to Harrods and celebrate’
THE Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition running Camden face fresh anger over its housing policies after selling off a nine-room detached house which appeared to be in hardly any need of refurbishment.
The sale has placed serious question marks over claims from senior councillors that they are only selling severely run-down properties.
The latest auction saw the Town Hall’s housing department coming under fire from all angles with scores of tenants calling on the council to put a moratorium on any more house sales.
Besieged housing chiefs are also battling with residents over the sacking of caretakers and decommissioning of homeless hostels.
On Monday, the New Journal witnessed a man wearing Gucci shoes win a bidding race for the council-owned 337 Finchley Road for £1,520,000 – more than double the starting price.
The impression among bidders was the property was a potential goldmine. Now in private hands, it will never be publicly owned again or available to prospective council tenants again.
The hammer only went down on the lot at the Berkeley Hotel, Knightsbridge after frantic bidding from dozens of well-heeled property developers. Once it did, chief auctioneer Chris Coleman-Smith, from property specialists Savills, exclaimed: “You don't get buildings like this in a location like that very often – go to Harrods and celebrate.”
The house, once intended to house Camden’s most in need, is a striking “double fronted” building which, unlike council homes in the borough recently sold at auctions, did not appear to need substantial repair work. In fact, according to the glossy Savills auction catalogue, the lot was in “clean decorative order” and there was no mention of essential work that is needed.
Approached by a New Journal reporter, the winning developer, who asked not to be named, said he had seen inside the building and that it was in “good condition”.
Housing chiefs have previously insisted that only properties that would take huge expenditure to make shipshape are being approved for sale. Campaigners have long argued that all homes should be retained for people on the long waiting list for homes.
The other five homes sold by Camden Council on Monday all came with a special warning buyers the property was “in need of modernisation”.
The sale of the Finchley Road building – of such interest to property developers – however has fuelled tenants’ fears that any property falling vacant could be sold off.
Meric Apak, chairman of Camden Federation of the Tenants and Residents Associations, said: “We have been categorically told that only properties that are economically too expensive and not viable to do up would be sold.” He added: “The council claims to have the support of tenants. That is a lie. Their consultation report suggests the complete opposite.”
In total, the Town Hall raked in £2,614,000 from the sale of five properties. The Town Hall sold six other properties for just under £3million in July. The money is due to be pumped into the housing department to pay for new kitchens and bathrooms.
Lib Dem estates chief Councillor James King said of the Finchley Road: “For a property of this kind, which is valued at more than £500,000, anything more than £50,000 of repair work to put it right would make it available for sale. This property was definitely over £50,000 – it needed new kitchens and bathrooms, plumbing and heating systems.” He added: “It is not desirable to be selling empty properties – but it is a consequence of the Labour government policy that is treating tenants unfairly.”
‘No sell-off’ rebellion gathers pace
TENANTS turned up the heat on councillors on Monday night by turning up to a public meeting in their droves and calling for a moratorium on council homes sales.
In a packed council chamber, residents warned councillors that thousands of votes at next year’s elections were at stake over the issue.
The warning came as a blame game threatened to develop between the Liberal Democrats and Labour in a row that has become the thorniest issue engulfing the Town Hall.
The Lib Dems, bruised by claims they are recklessly selling off the family silver, have sprung into action and were leafleting outside the meeting with reminders to tenants that the government has failed to invest in Camden’s housing stock.
Meanwhile, inside the chamber, Labour MP Frank Dobson drew claps and cheers when he pledged to take a leading role in the fight for help from his own government. “I will take a deputation involving tenants to see the Housing Minister John Healey,” Mr Dobson said.
The MP said he was angry with the Labour government for sidelining tenants’ views and leaving them without improvements to their homes, but added that he took the selling of homes he helped buy up when leader of the council in the 1970s “very very personally”.
He said: “For every home they sell off, somebody on the waiting list misses out.”
Candy Udwin, who lives in an estate in Somers Town and is a member of the No Sells Off group which organised the meeting, said there was one last chance for councillors to join a unified campaign.
Lib Dem councillor Keith
Moffitt – the Town Hall’s leader – was not present but he has already said he would not join tenants in a deputation to Whitehall because he does not think it would be productive.
But Ms Udwin said: “Let’s give them one more chance. Let’s see if they will work with us. We need tenants on the estates, not just tenants leaders, out there and asking the question. If councillors won’t join us, let’s go to the surgeries and ask them why not. There are council elections next year and we will remember then what stance individual councillors took. We have to work together on this, tenants, councillors, our MPs – and while we are, we need to have a moratorium on council sales.”
Privately, some tenants leaders suggested that more meetings and negotiating with councillors might not be strong enough action. There are even whispers about wheeling back to a forgotten age of campaigning with suggestions of possible sit-ins at the Town Hall and boroughwide rent strikes.
Labour councillor Roger Robinson said: “This campaign needs a lot more militancy, marches through the streets. We can still win this. To me, council housing is the best thing we’ve got and we have to do more to protect it.”
Why didn’t the Lib Dems go into tenants’ meeting?
HIT by weeks of tenants’ anger about council policy of raising money by selling council homes, the Lib Dems prepared to shoot the messenger this week and accused the New Journal of only quoting a “small pool of card-carrying Labour members”.
Out in force at the Town Hall, Lib Dem councillors and election hopefuls thrust yellow leaflets into the hands of tenants arriving at the Town Hall for Monday night’s meeting.
The following day, cabinet member Councillor James King spun into action in an exchange with assistant editor Richard Osley.
James King: You were on the phone as you arrived at the Town Hall last night but I think you got a copy of the Camden Lib Dem leaflet regarding Labour’s record on Camden Council housing.
Richard Osley: I saw the leaflet and the campaigning and was wondering why nobody came inside and spoke at the meeting?
JK: I wasn’t invited and I had another meeting to go to. But there are no shortages of opportunities for tenant reps and councillors to question me. I only wish the CNJ didn’t put so much weight on the same small pool of mostly card-carrying members of the Labour party all the time.
RO: It was a well-advertised public meeting so no need for an invite. I wasn’t invited either, I just turned up. It just seemed strange that there were lots of Lib Dem members outside but only three inside. I thought it was a shame, as you had so many people at the Town Hall that nobody thought it worth speaking up. Also, I think it is easy to portray tenants’ reps as “card-carrying members of the Labour party” but I’m not sure it’s strictly fair. If you had been inside the meeting you would have heard criticism of all political parties, central and local government.
JK: I will reflect on whether it would have been better to have sought Lib Dem input into the meeting. But don’t forget it was promoted as a meeting with set speakers around an anti-Council/ Government agenda so it couldn’t be described as a public meeting with an open agenda. I don’t claim every attendee at Monday’s meeting was a Labour activitist but a remarkable proportion of tenant reps quoted in CNJ articles are.
I and many other LibDem councillors do represent wards with significant numbers of council properties so we have obviously won the votes of large numbers of tenants and we are engaging with tenants all the time.
What’s all the fuss about?
Thousands of Camden’s council homes are in disrepair and need new bathrooms and kitchens but the Labour government has refused to pay for the work.
Why was the money stopped?
Ministers froze investment five years ago after a dispute about who should run Camden council homes. Tenants voted against government policy of roping in outside companies to run their homes.
So because tenants didn’t want companies running their homes, they have been forced to live in homes that don’t make the grade?
That’s about the size of it. Tenants say they were punished for voting to keep the elected council as their landlords.
I thought Gordon Brown was big on council housing?
The Prime Minister makes the right noises about the importance of council housing but has yet to release funds for Camden. In an interview with the New Journal, he said the council should come and ask him for investment.
So, have the council been arguing with his government?
The Lib Dems/Tories have sent letters and sought meetings but told
tenants not to get their hopes up.
And that’s it?
No, that’s only the half of it. To pay for refurbishment, the council has begun selling off some council homes. The council could lose star ratings on government assessments if they don’t make headway on refurbishment work.
Is selling off houses a popular idea?
The Lib Dems insist they have been forced into it and that tenants are sympathetic. But campaigners say they’re not and want the homes being sold to be let to people on the 17,000-strong waiting list. Objectors say the council should join with tenants and be bolder in their fight for government investment.
If the tenants hate the idea, why didn’t they vote against it?
They didn’t get the chance. No vote was held.
So, people want council leaders and tenants to march side by side on Whitehall?
The idea appears to be gathering momentum on the estates but Lib Dem council leader Keith Moffitt said he didn’t see the point in a joint delegation with tenants to the Housing Minister.
We will fight the sackings!
HOUSING chiefs face a fresh headache with the threat of a possible High Court challenge to their decision to sack a quarter of council caretakers.
The council’s executive – a cabal of 10 senior Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors who have the final say on Town Hall policy – made the move at a meeting last Wednesday. Despite protests from unions and the residents who benefit from the service, it decided that the private firm Veolia will take over the cleaning of estates.
But the New Journal has learned that the matter might not yet be done and dusted, as tenants are seeking legal advice on whether they can force a judicial review.
Tenants leader Silla Carron, of the Clarence Way estate in Camden Town, said she was consulting solicitors: “The contract was never put out to tender, it was handed over lock stock and barrel to Veolia. We rely heavily on our caretakers. We will not let them be treated in this way.”
The council has argued that a poll of 800 residents showed support for the switcharound but Ms Carron, star of the award-winning BBC documentary The Estate We’re In, said the survey asked “loaded questions” and was flawed. “We were never asked for our views, ”she added.
The council has also been warned it faces possible strike action over the deal, which will save the council just £109,000 a year – an amount that even senior councillors admit is not astounding.
Public service union Unison is talking to members over whether to take industrial action over the sackings and demands for those who survive the cut to double the size of their patch.
Tenants have been inundating the New Journal with examples of the vital work caretakers do. Dorian Courtesi, who lives in Barrington Court, Gospel Oak, was full of praise for his caretaker David Hawsey: “He is well known and people have the utmost respect for him. We need faces here we trust. This is destabilising our community.”
Mr Hawsey does much more than maintenance and cleaning, he added. “The caretaker keeps an eye on the elderly and young people. When drug dealers are using the fire escapes, he confronts them. If needed, he is able to respond immediately.”
James Boyce, who has lived on the Aspern Grove estate for 20 years in Belsize Park, said: “If there is a problem of any kind, the first person we go to is the caretaker. They are the eyes and ears. They are easy targets. The people at the top are not asked to take redundancy or wage cuts.”
Lib Dem councillor and housing chief James King defended the changes, saying: “The new arrangements can both deliver services improvements and significant savings, and the anticipated number of redundancies is small.” |
 |
|
|
|
Your comments:
|
| |
|
|
|
