This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2012/oct/31/earls-court-project-tenants-residents-associations
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Earls Court project: "They actually believe their own bullshit" | Earls Court project: "They actually believe their own bullshit" |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Regular readers will know the vital facts: the planned Earls Court redevelopment project is one of the capital's largest, with its backers promising 7,500 new homes, 6,000 of them for market sale, and economic rejuvenation for 77 acres of inner West London and its surrounding territory; those supporters include the Conservative-run boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F), Kensington and Chelsea (K&C), their developer partner Capco and Conservative London mayor Boris Johnson, who seems extremely unlikely to use his powers to impede the scheme. | Regular readers will know the vital facts: the planned Earls Court redevelopment project is one of the capital's largest, with its backers promising 7,500 new homes, 6,000 of them for market sale, and economic rejuvenation for 77 acres of inner West London and its surrounding territory; those supporters include the Conservative-run boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F), Kensington and Chelsea (K&C), their developer partner Capco and Conservative London mayor Boris Johnson, who seems extremely unlikely to use his powers to impede the scheme. |
| Meanwhile, opponents of the project claim that it's impractical and motivated by money lust and low electoral motives; a judicial review of a key planning document is to proceed; the events industry is opposed to the proposed destruction of the two Earls Court exhibition centre buildings; a panel of architects is opposed to its design; residents of two estates threatened with demolition by the project have expressed opposition in a public consultation by a ratio of at least three to one. | Meanwhile, opponents of the project claim that it's impractical and motivated by money lust and low electoral motives; a judicial review of a key planning document is to proceed; the events industry is opposed to the proposed destruction of the two Earls Court exhibition centre buildings; a panel of architects is opposed to its design; residents of two estates threatened with demolition by the project have expressed opposition in a public consultation by a ratio of at least three to one. |
| What happens next seems in the balance, with both sides of the argument insisting they will prevail. What is already beyond doubt is that the battle over Earls Court has distilled and crystalised core themes of the debate about urban redevelopment, localism, housing policy, planning law and the future character of London as a whole. It has also mobilised a grassroots neighbourhood organisation and power of a type we might have thought consigned to history. | What happens next seems in the balance, with both sides of the argument insisting they will prevail. What is already beyond doubt is that the battle over Earls Court has distilled and crystalised core themes of the debate about urban redevelopment, localism, housing policy, planning law and the future character of London as a whole. It has also mobilised a grassroots neighbourhood organisation and power of a type we might have thought consigned to history. |
| Sally Taylor and Diana Belshaw are the respective chairs of the tenants and residents associations (TRAs) of the two demolition-threatened estates, the West Kensington and the smaller, adjoining Gibbs Green. Both TRAs are strongly against the demolition of the estates, and favours instead taking community-led ownership of them. When I visited Sally and Diana at Sally's flat on Monday evening, I began by simply asking them to tell me why they think the Earls Court project is a bad idea. | Sally Taylor and Diana Belshaw are the respective chairs of the tenants and residents associations (TRAs) of the two demolition-threatened estates, the West Kensington and the smaller, adjoining Gibbs Green. Both TRAs are strongly against the demolition of the estates, and favours instead taking community-led ownership of them. When I visited Sally and Diana at Sally's flat on Monday evening, I began by simply asking them to tell me why they think the Earls Court project is a bad idea. |
| They offered a number of reasons, but the theme they warmed to with most fervour was their view that residents of the estates have been denigrated, misrepresented and deceived by the council in the service of its own, hostile agenda. "They're quite prepared to demolish perfectly good homes," Sally says. "Solid concrete, large, where people are happy. They should be proud of this estate. Yet from the beginning they've called us a sink estate." | They offered a number of reasons, but the theme they warmed to with most fervour was their view that residents of the estates have been denigrated, misrepresented and deceived by the council in the service of its own, hostile agenda. "They're quite prepared to demolish perfectly good homes," Sally says. "Solid concrete, large, where people are happy. They should be proud of this estate. Yet from the beginning they've called us a sink estate." |
| They cite council documents characterising West Kensington and Gibbs Green as being in poor physical condition, with high levels of crime, unemployment, rates of teenage pregnancy, and generally blighted with social deprivation - a sorry state from which demolition and rehousing into more "mixed communities" and jobs created by a wider redevelopment would rescue their unfortunate inhabitants. | They cite council documents characterising West Kensington and Gibbs Green as being in poor physical condition, with high levels of crime, unemployment, rates of teenage pregnancy, and generally blighted with social deprivation - a sorry state from which demolition and rehousing into more "mixed communities" and jobs created by a wider redevelopment would rescue their unfortunate inhabitants. |
| The unflattering depiction is much like that found in the 2009 think tank pamphlet Principles for Social Housing Reform, co-authored by the then council leader Stephen Greenhalgh, who now heads Boris Johnson's office for policing and crime and whose views on housing and welfare permeate Conservative and coalition national policies. | The unflattering depiction is much like that found in the 2009 think tank pamphlet Principles for Social Housing Reform, co-authored by the then council leader Stephen Greenhalgh, who now heads Boris Johnson's office for policing and crime and whose views on housing and welfare permeate Conservative and coalition national policies. |
| "Social housing was meant to help lift people out of the slums. Instead many social housing estates have become the very ghettos of multiple social deprivation that they were supposed to replace," it contends. "Politicians responsible for large swathes of social housing must make every effort they can to create mixed communities in their most deprived areas." | "Social housing was meant to help lift people out of the slums. Instead many social housing estates have become the very ghettos of multiple social deprivation that they were supposed to replace," it contends. "Politicians responsible for large swathes of social housing must make every effort they can to create mixed communities in their most deprived areas." |
| Do West Kensington and Gibbs Green fit this description? Do the people who live there? Would those among them who are poor, unwell, unemployed or have been troubled by crime find these problems reduced by having their homes knocked down and moving into a newer one, perhaps in closer proximity to more people who are better off than they are? | Do West Kensington and Gibbs Green fit this description? Do the people who live there? Would those among them who are poor, unwell, unemployed or have been troubled by crime find these problems reduced by having their homes knocked down and moving into a newer one, perhaps in closer proximity to more people who are better off than they are? |
| "They actually believe their own bullshit," Sally says. "They actually believed that no one had a job, no one could read or write, and all we could do was shag donkeys and have babies. That's basically their starting point. There was no bloody respect shown for ordinary people who drive the London buses, clean the London offices, drive the Tube, work in the NHS, all the things that society holds dear. That was their biggest mistake. They made assumptions: oh, stupid, thick, uneducated, pregnant people will just roll over and take this." | "They actually believe their own bullshit," Sally says. "They actually believed that no one had a job, no one could read or write, and all we could do was shag donkeys and have babies. That's basically their starting point. There was no bloody respect shown for ordinary people who drive the London buses, clean the London offices, drive the Tube, work in the NHS, all the things that society holds dear. That was their biggest mistake. They made assumptions: oh, stupid, thick, uneducated, pregnant people will just roll over and take this." |
| If so, they were mistaken. To portray the estates as mono-tenured, inward-looking incubators of a self-perpetuating hand-out culture is to ignore its medical professionals - Sally and Diana, for example, are both nurses working in the health service - entrepreneurs, engineers and, ironically enough, property developers, and that its 760 households included 171 leasehold or freehold properties. The TRA chairs also contend that the council's definition of "workless" residents encompasses those many who are simply retired. | If so, they were mistaken. To portray the estates as mono-tenured, inward-looking incubators of a self-perpetuating hand-out culture is to ignore its medical professionals - Sally and Diana, for example, are both nurses working in the health service - entrepreneurs, engineers and, ironically enough, property developers, and that its 760 households included 171 leasehold or freehold properties. The TRA chairs also contend that the council's definition of "workless" residents encompasses those many who are simply retired. |
| The argument now often made that the very design of housing estates with a strong social housing element fosters isolation from participation from society's mainstream is somewhat belied by the size of the response rate to the council's consultation on including the estates in the wider Earls Court project. The overall figure was 67.7%, and 57% among the secure council tenants. By contrast, the rate among residents in the surrounding area was just 2% of the 29,240 properties from whom a response was sought. A vivid and relentless anti-demolition campaign has been co-ordinated by Jonathan Rosenberg, a passionate veteran of the successful resistance to Dame Shirley Porter's scandalous "homes-for-votes" policy in Westminster in the 1980s. | The argument now often made that the very design of housing estates with a strong social housing element fosters isolation from participation from society's mainstream is somewhat belied by the size of the response rate to the council's consultation on including the estates in the wider Earls Court project. The overall figure was 67.7%, and 57% among the secure council tenants. By contrast, the rate among residents in the surrounding area was just 2% of the 29,240 properties from whom a response was sought. A vivid and relentless anti-demolition campaign has been co-ordinated by Jonathan Rosenberg, a passionate veteran of the successful resistance to Dame Shirley Porter's scandalous "homes-for-votes" policy in Westminster in the 1980s. |
| The premise that housing tenure and configuration are, of themselves, inevitably generators of social evils is contested by Diana. "It's as if they think that by moving people it's going to make the sick well and bring people off benefits. How are you going to make someone that's got a long-term condition that means they can't work, how is it that by moving them it's going to make them well and be able to get back into work?" Sally argues that if the estates are to some extent self-enclosed, this feature is not damned as antisocial in other types of residential property, such as affluent "gated communities." | The premise that housing tenure and configuration are, of themselves, inevitably generators of social evils is contested by Diana. "It's as if they think that by moving people it's going to make the sick well and bring people off benefits. How are you going to make someone that's got a long-term condition that means they can't work, how is it that by moving them it's going to make them well and be able to get back into work?" Sally argues that if the estates are to some extent self-enclosed, this feature is not damned as antisocial in other types of residential property, such as affluent "gated communities." |
| Both women delight in stories of inviting supporters of demolition into their homes in order to confound preconceptions. Sally once showed two Conservative ladies from Chelsea round her place. ""They said, 'Oh but you'll get something much nicer.' That's what gets to me. It's this prescriptive attitude - 'You poor people, you can have this and you should be jolly well grateful for it.' So I said to these women, 'How do you know what these flats are like?' I showed them round. I wouldn't let them leave! I showed them the bedrooms, I showed them the walls, and they were really shocked. And that's the thing. We've been talked about as if we're not in the room. The way they describe it, it's like the whole place is covered in graffiti and there's cars burning everywhere." | Both women delight in stories of inviting supporters of demolition into their homes in order to confound preconceptions. Sally once showed two Conservative ladies from Chelsea round her place. ""They said, 'Oh but you'll get something much nicer.' That's what gets to me. It's this prescriptive attitude - 'You poor people, you can have this and you should be jolly well grateful for it.' So I said to these women, 'How do you know what these flats are like?' I showed them round. I wouldn't let them leave! I showed them the bedrooms, I showed them the walls, and they were really shocked. And that's the thing. We've been talked about as if we're not in the room. The way they describe it, it's like the whole place is covered in graffiti and there's cars burning everywhere." |
| Diana describes a visit from Stephen Greenhalgh himself during the 2010 general and borough election campaigns. "I took him into my house to show him there's nothing wrong with it. I showed him a photograph of me with my cap and gown, just to show him that we're not all under-educated. And even if we were, that doesn't make us any less a person." Her story developed to include Greenhalgh becoming emotional and her becoming cross - so cross that she picked up a frying pan. "I wouldn't have hit him with it. I just wanted to show him my anger, but he just didn't seem to want to listen." I was reassured that the frying pan was both empty and spotlessly clean. | Diana describes a visit from Stephen Greenhalgh himself during the 2010 general and borough election campaigns. "I took him into my house to show him there's nothing wrong with it. I showed him a photograph of me with my cap and gown, just to show him that we're not all under-educated. And even if we were, that doesn't make us any less a person." Her story developed to include Greenhalgh becoming emotional and her becoming cross - so cross that she picked up a frying pan. "I wouldn't have hit him with it. I just wanted to show him my anger, but he just didn't seem to want to listen." I was reassured that the frying pan was both empty and spotlessly clean. |
| Sally and Diana believe that the council was been its own worst enemy from the start by seeking buyers for the two estates, and others, without telling residents first and then trying to deny it. They say that efforts by the council and its developer partner Capco to engage with the community have been driven more by a desire to break down resistance than to listen. "In the very early days, this fellow from the developers said to me, 'Sally, we need to talk. Have a fruit gum,' he said. He was a bit, you know, smart - take my number, and all this. I actually said to him, 'I will not sell my soul to the devil.' He thought I could be bought with a fruit gum." | Sally and Diana believe that the council was been its own worst enemy from the start by seeking buyers for the two estates, and others, without telling residents first and then trying to deny it. They say that efforts by the council and its developer partner Capco to engage with the community have been driven more by a desire to break down resistance than to listen. "In the very early days, this fellow from the developers said to me, 'Sally, we need to talk. Have a fruit gum,' he said. He was a bit, you know, smart - take my number, and all this. I actually said to him, 'I will not sell my soul to the devil.' He thought I could be bought with a fruit gum." |
| Both women recoil from a soft sell language in which "regeneration" means "demolition," and proposed new, tall residential buildings are called not "tower blocks" but "mansion blocks." They see themselves as being made "pawns in a big boys' chess game. We're disposable. They're forcing us to take a medicine that we don't want and don't need." | Both women recoil from a soft sell language in which "regeneration" means "demolition," and proposed new, tall residential buildings are called not "tower blocks" but "mansion blocks." They see themselves as being made "pawns in a big boys' chess game. We're disposable. They're forcing us to take a medicine that we don't want and don't need." |
| On Tuesday the two TRAs held their annual general meeting. The evening's business included seeking members' support for a document headed Agreement of The People. Composed by Rosenberg*, whose rhetorical repertoire revels in rejecting understatement, it contains the following assertions: | |
| In our hearts and in our minds, we know that this demolition scheme is totally wrong. It's mistaken because it destroys a decent neighbourhood and thriving industries; it's unkind because it damages the most vulnerable people; it's morally repugnant because it privileges the powerful over the weak. | In our hearts and in our minds, we know that this demolition scheme is totally wrong. It's mistaken because it destroys a decent neighbourhood and thriving industries; it's unkind because it damages the most vulnerable people; it's morally repugnant because it privileges the powerful over the weak. |
| Every shade of decent opinion marvels: whenever were knavish tricks to be preferred over hard work? Whenever was it just for personal interest to triumph over the collective good? Whenever was it right for the rich to profit at the expense of the poor? | Every shade of decent opinion marvels: whenever were knavish tricks to be preferred over hard work? Whenever was it just for personal interest to triumph over the collective good? Whenever was it right for the rich to profit at the expense of the poor? |
| And another thing: | And another thing: |
| The Council and the developer haven't the slightest chance of getting away with their greedy, selfish, nasty scheme. We fight for justice; we shall win our freedom; and we shall impose the peace...We, the residents of West Kensington and Gibbs Green agree: | The Council and the developer haven't the slightest chance of getting away with their greedy, selfish, nasty scheme. We fight for justice; we shall win our freedom; and we shall impose the peace...We, the residents of West Kensington and Gibbs Green agree: |
| 1. Not to be bribed, bought, or bullied into giving up our homes. | 1. Not to be bribed, bought, or bullied into giving up our homes. |
| 2. To support our neighbours to defeat this evil scheme, to help each other to resist, come what may. | 2. To support our neighbours to defeat this evil scheme, to help each other to resist, come what may. |
| 3. Never to give up on the trustful relationships we've established; never to lose the faith; and never to abandon our righteous cause. | 3. Never to give up on the trustful relationships we've established; never to lose the faith; and never to abandon our righteous cause. |
| Our vision shines bright and true: we shall live together in community, confident that our destiny is to own our land. The future is ours to control, so long as we achieve it together, as one...These are our homes; this is our neighbourhood; and we shall never surrender! | Our vision shines bright and true: we shall live together in community, confident that our destiny is to own our land. The future is ours to control, so long as we achieve it together, as one...These are our homes; this is our neighbourhood; and we shall never surrender! |
| Power to the People! | Power to the People! |
| The Agreement was adopted. The council has a long, hard fight on its hands. | The Agreement was adopted. The council has a long, hard fight on its hands. |
| Update, 1 November 2012. Jonathan Rosenberg has asked me to say that the Agreement emerged from the work of his fellow community organisers as well as from himself, and expresses the sentiments of residents opposed to demolition, as previously expressed in their responses to the council's consultation. |