The feedback report, prepared by Local Dialogue Ltd, describes the engagement activities undertaken by Lambeth Council in March 2016 around the options for the regenerations of Central Hill. It summarises the feedback received from the residents in the body of the report and full feedback is included in the appendices.
The full report can be found here in a downloadable pdf.
The report sets out:
- What engagement activity was undertaken by Lambeth Council; and,
- The feedback received from residents of the estate
Between 5 March 2016 and 15 April 2016 (N.B. This is the final submission date for feedback forms) Lambeth Council carried out engagement with residents of Central Hill to update them on the work which had been going on over the 12-months, present the options which will be considered during the upcoming estate-wide consultation and explain why other options such as refurbishment and infill will not be consulted on.
This engagement exercise was undertaken to enable residents to provide their views on on the options being considered by Lambeth Council and to give more information about why certain scenarios were not being considered.
22% of Lambeth tenants and resident leaseholders attended the exhibitions and a summary of these events was delivered to all households on the estate.
Options being considered Included:
- Redevelopment (874 Homes)
- Redevelopment with increased homes (961 Homes)
Information was supplied why the following scenarios were not being considered:
- The refurbishment of the estate
- Building homes on vacant land
- Retaining homes where the costs of refurbishment are less
Completed feedback forms
Between 5th March 2016 and 15th April, a total of 85 completed feedback forms were received by the project team. The feedback form was available to fill in at exhibitions, to take home and return via freepost or available online. It was also posted to all estate residents on 5th April 2016 as part of the exhibition summary booklet.
Recipients were asked their views on:
- Whether the Council had supplied enough information as to why it unable to refurbish Central Hill
- Whether the Council has supplied enough information as to why it is unable to build additional homes on the estate and fund the refurbishment of existing homes
- Whether the Council supplied enough information as to why it cannot retain the homes at Gipsy Hill- Highland Road (odds) Vicars Oak Road (odds) and Central Hill
- The redevelopment option for the estate (874 properties)
- The increased density redevelopment option (900+ properties)
- The Key Guarantees for both tenants and leaseholders
- Any additional comments
It should be noted that, while 85 feedback forms were received, not all the questions were answered.
The full feedback report along with the blank feedback form can be found in the pdf of the full report.
Comparing views on redevelopment
Estate residents who provided completed feedback forms:
- Indicated a slightly positive response to the regeneration option that included 874 properties;
- Indicated a more negative response to the regeneration option with over 900 properties.
Satisafaction with information supplied
The consultation also looked to explain why the estate had to be redeveloped and why refurbishment or building extra properties on the estate is unviable. It also looked to explain why the homes on Gipsy Hill (including odds numbered properties on Highland Road and Vicars Road as well as properties on Central Hill road). Of the feedback forms received:37 indicated they had received enough information as to why the Council is unable to refurbish Central Hill
- 27 felt they had not received enough information as to why the Council is unable to refurbish Central Hill
- 8 were unsure
- 35 indicated they had received enough information as to why the Council is anable to build additional homes on the estate and refurbish existing homes
- 25 felt they had not received enough information as to why the Council is anable to build additional homes on the estate and refurbish existing homes
- 12 were unsure
- 27 indicated that they had received enough information on why the Council cannot retain the homes at Gipsy Hill
- 27 felt they had not received enough information on why the Council cannot retain the homes at Gipsy Hill
- 16 were unsure
- 2 were left blank
Comparing responses from tenants and leaseholders
The feedback forms that we have received have also shown that there is a clear difference in option on the estate from those who are leaseholders on the estate and those that are tenants on the estate. This is both in terms as to their views on regeneration and as to the information provided. Of the feedback forms received, as the graphs below show their response was:
- Of those that responded, leaseholders had a far more negative view on both redevelopment options, with no leaseholders supporting the 900+ property development;
- Of those that responded, a greater amount of Lambeth tenants had a positive view on the 874 property development than had a negative view and, to a smaller margin, more tenants had positive views on the 900+ development than negative.
Similar trends can be found in the differences in the responses given to the question as to whether the Council had given enough information to residents as to why other options were not being looked at as part of the consultation. Of the feedback forms received, as the graphs below show their response was:
- Of those that responded, leaseholders felt much less likely to feel that enough information had been provided by the council for all three questions.
- Of those that responded, in every category more leaseholders thought that the information provided by the council was enough for them to understand why the council could not pursue those options.
Feedback on design principles and aspirations
At the exhibitions, visitors were asked to provide feedback and further suggestions to the design principles which should guide any future regeneration, and their aspirations for the future of the estate. The comments received were as follows.
- Sound insulation
- Ground floor/gardens for older people
- Height of buildings on Central Hill – Too high, blocks out residents on Croydon side, vastly diminishing value and open natural light and view – appalled!
- Stacking of living areas
- Block for older people near Crystal Palace
- We need 2 bedroom houses for people moving out of 3 bed houses
- Large blocks are too close together – Anti-social behaviour
- Nice play area for the kids
- In my opinion it is better to separate the kitchen from the living room
- Worried about how the tenants will ‘fit in’ with each other
- 6 storeys are too high – increased density will cause anti-social behaviour
- Details for moving in – curtain rails
- Toilets and bath must be separated
- Convert lower two floors in Pear Tree House into 4 flats – makes no sense to demolish PT House, it is sustainably built and does not cost Lambeth maintenance, possible to erect small block on existing open space
- Identifying space within the estate where building can start to reduce the need for residents to move off and back to Central Hill.
- Developing a phasing programme so residents wanting to remain in Central Hill move directly from their current home into a new property
- Protecting the green aspect of the site - trees and green areas should be maintained.
- Making the most of the views across London
- Improving pedestrian access across the estate – specifically for those with mobility problems, or have children in prams/buggies.
- The number of gardens should be maximised – this will be limited by the amount of ground floor space, but there will be private external space for all homes.
- There should be a sufficient range of housing provision including ‘proper’ houses, not just flats
- Secure by Design – this is to try & design out crime & the fear of crime, by not having blind corners, areas that are not overlooked
- There should be storage provision within the homes
- Low level construction is essential – that means 6 storeys as an absolute maximum
- There should be some community space/shop provision
- The homes should be designed to reduce service and on-going maintenance charges
- Nice play area for the kids.
- Options for open plan or not – better to separate the kitchen from the living room.