Morning:
9°c
David Cameron's favourite Tory town hall is being accused of planning a "social cleansing" programme of demolishing council estates.
Hammersmith and Fulham council is plotting a Dame Shirley Porter-style programme to move out the poor and replace them with private homes and retail developments, critics claim.
Residents hit out as secret documents, obtained by the Standard, revealed how the borough's leader and officials worked on a radical policy to end "homes for life" and turn council housing into a safety net service for just the old and disabled.
Under the plans, new homes will be built to attract residents with higher incomes and areas that have traditionally voted Labour will be broken up as more than 3,500 flats and houses are demolished. Council leader Stephen Greenhalgh, who also heads Mr Cameron's Conservative Councils Innovation Unit, believes council housing is "warehousing poverty" and entrenches welfare dependency.
Mr Greenhalgh denied he plans to ship low income residents out to other areas of London, but tenants and leaseholders fear they will be left with nowhere to go once their homes are demolished and fewer replacements built.
Hammersmith and Fulham's newly published Local Development Framework includes options to demolish large council estates such as those in White City, West Kensington, Hammersmith and Fulham.
Critics say the plan is based on a radical policy paper, which Mr Greenhalgh produced in association with the Localis think tank.
The report says council estates "deliver a risible return on assets". It calls for council rents to be increased to market levels, a move that it estimates would raise £5billion a year nationwide in extra income that could then be spent on building new homes.
One document shows that if rents in Hammersmith were increased to private levels, a two-bed council flat currently costing £85 a week would go up to £360 a week. To placate tenants, extra housing benefit would be paid but the aim would be to end the divide between public and private housing.
Papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal how Mr Greenhalgh and town hall officers helped to draft the Localis ideas and how to handle a backlash from residents.
One memo describes a council estate as "barracks for the poor", while another says social housing is "not about giving somebody a £1million home for life". A note of one meeting points out that it is "hard to get rid of people" and that "Porteresque accusations of gerrymandering or social engineering need to be faced head on".
It adds that "funding [is] needed for political problem of management" and warns that "political pain is a factor -can local pols accept the level of pain involved in making it happen?"
Under current laws, Hammersmith cannot impose huge rent rises and is required to find alternative accommodation for all residents if estates are cleared. But Mr Greenhalgh hopes to relax rent controls and change legislation that gives tenants the right to a home for life.
Andrew Slaughter, the Labour MP for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush who submitted the FoI request, said: "Using the language of social cleansing, and with no respect for age, vulnerability or human rights, the Tories propose to destroy communities. This is social engineering on a grand scale and it is being recommended to David Cameron as the way forward in housing."
Mr Greenhalgh said there would be no reduction in the number of "habitable rooms" in any redevelopment.
"It's ludicrous to talk about 'social cleansing'. That's rubbish from neanderthals in the Labour Party. Every time someone comes up with an idea on housing, they are branded as having an ulterior, nasty motive. I make no apology for having a bold vision. We are not stepping back and as and when we have specific plans, we will talk to people about it."
He said Localis was an independent think tank, "not an extension of the Conservative Party" and the council officers' involvement was entirely appropriate.
Town Hall is policy test bed for Tories
Ever since the Tories wrested control of Hammersmith and Fulham from Labour in 2006, the authority has proved a high-profile test bed for the party's policy team. Under Stephen Greenhalgh the council has imposed savings, delivered a three per cent cut in council tax, and boasts the only New York-style 24-hour council policing in Britain.
He has presented his radical social housing policies to shadow housing minister Grant Shapps, Tory chairman Eric Pickles and Mayor Boris Johnson.
The Mayor's housing adviser Richard Blakeway sent an email to Mr Greenhalgh stating: “My big point is units not being tied to tenure... one option may be to use the next stage of the Mayor's housing strategy and/or Tory Green Paper.”
Mr Greenhalgh told Mr Pickles and Mr Shapps that “the Government has received no benefit from billions invested in Local Authority and Registered Social Landlord sector”.
Dame Shirley's Downfall
The “homes-for-votes” scandal began in 1987 when Dame Shirley Porter, below, Tory leader of Westminster council, sold homes in eight marginal wards to private buyers in the hope that they would be more likely to vote Tory.
Meanwhile, poorer families thought to be less likely to back them, were housed in blocks known to be riddled with asbestos in Labour wards. Two years later, Panorama accused the council of seeking to manipulate the electorate and in 1989 district auditor John Magill began an inquiry.
He imposed a £31.6 million surcharge on Tesco heiress Dame Shirley and five former council colleagues, concluding they were guilty of “disgraceful and improper gerrymandering”. She appealed to the High Court but she and her former deputy David Weeks were branded “liars''. Two years later she was cleared by the Court of Appeal — but Mr Magill took the case to the Lords.
In 2001 it found Dame Shirley guilty of political corruption and reimposed a £26.5 million surcharge made by the High Court against her and Mr Weeks. The deadline for Dame Shirley to pay passed, leading to another High Court battle. Finally, in 2004, she agreed to pay Westminster £12.3 million.
Reader views (29)
how about this for a solution to the burdensome poor,relocate them all to the falklands without state benefits and state housing to "reduce the surplus population" then replace their number with the migrants awaiting deportation, minimal cost win /win solution
- Adam Cairn, canterbury uk
London is a city with a huge demand for housing. There is simply no room to house any benifit cheats or Charlotans, hence why such people should be rehoused somewhere else in another town/city.
- Sam, Manchester
Security is an essential part of what makes a real home. A real home can take a long time to evolve once a property has been moved into and if there is always a feeling that it is never really yours, that you can be turfed out as soon as you don't 'need' every room, the sense of security and long term commitment to the property will be undermined. As everyone with a family will know, a family home isn't a place that just nurtures a young family, it is a point of security for the adult family as well: a place that can be returned to if need be. I think it is a tribute to the system that people don't instantly give up their social housing as soon as they can afford something else - it means that their homes really are homes. No one would stay in a property just because it was cheap unless they had to.
I think it is a very healthy aspect of our society that here and there the rich do live among the poor and vice versa. It is wonderful that there is social housing in Westminster and Hampstead and Holland Park... it mitigates, to some extent, the fact that we live in a rich/poor world.
- Simone, Hammersmith & Fulham
what planet you on paul everyone is entilted to there opinions but you are classifying people because of where they live have you lived there? There is crime everywhere.I have not got much but i am no chav. how dare you.
- Dawn, LONDON
There is a big difference between the poor and scum.
Poor people work hard for a living while the scum will rob you blind.
These estates are used to house dirty disgusting chavs so well done Tories,about time something was done about these creatures.
I am poor so please don't come out with the left wing clap trap about rich people stepping over us because that is simply not true.
- David, London
It's not even a matter of 'them' getting subsidised housing, as some politicians tell it. Most Council tenants work, many on low wages, at the important jobs in this country (yes, cleaning & other low-pay jobs are important as well as politics!), & Council rent incomes cover the costs of investment. It seems these politicians can't accept people who won't or can't buy their homes.
Where do they think 'they' will go?
- Chris Mccabe, Sandy UK
Living in Hammersmith it's clear that the council puts self-promotion above the residents' well being. The quality of services has worsened, repairs to roads and pavements are being carried out to an increasingly impoverished and apparently unsupervised standard. Short-termism rules - and the Council leader seems to think of nothing but Tory self-interest.
- Sue, Hammersmith
Ridding the estate of the poor? Since when is it only the poor living on council estates? I remember seeing a Rolls ROyce parked outside a council-owned house in South Ealing and I have seen plenty of late model cars, incl. BMWs and Mercedes, owned by council estate residents. It's such a well-known joke it's no longer funny or even remarked upon. Time to refresh your thinking,folks, on so-called "social housing"!
- Hpark, Toronto
The snobbery and ignorant views displayed by some people here are shocking. Most council tenants I know do not own a car or go on expensive holidays. Most are employed. However most are in low paid jobs such as hospital porters, security guards, refuse collectors, etc - all essential to the running of this city. The money they earn will not pay the average private rent or mortgage. Two of my friends, both in the building trade, have recently been laid off work. Should they and their kids be turned out of their flats because of circumstances beyond their control?
- Mary A, London
There have been lots of problems with that estate. A clean start might be the way forward.
- Caroline, Islington, London
This is indicative of everything that is wrong with this country- looking at ways to save money in the short term to massage the figures with no consideration to the long-term cost and implications. There will always be a requirement for social housing and it is our moral obligation to ensure everyone lives in good quality homes. We now have the absurd situation that councils now have to rent back houses and flats that they once owned from private landlords for people on their housing lists, at a much higher cost than if they owned them themselves. Why? Because they were sold under the right to buy (often for less than their true value) to raise money and save costs in the short term back in the 80’s. It’s the same in every aspect of public life in this country; no one will invest in the railways long term as there is no short term return, the MOD rent equipment instead of buying it, often at a much greater cost to keep the headline figure down. This short term approach is ruining this country and sadly I think it is here to stay no matter who is in government.
- Nj, London
I see that class riven drivel is alive and well.
- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx
People are just making sweeping assumptions about council estates. Key workers also live there you doughnuts, who is going to clean your expensive flats, maintain your hospitals, sweep the streets? Where do you think those people live? Digusting behaviour, creating a little rich enclave for their mates, to boost their house price. The money paid out on the welfare state is nothing compared to how the country has been ripped off by bankers. It is those you should direct your anger towards, not the poor and the vulnerable, the mentally ill. There is something missing, humanity I think they call it, from people who argue in favour of this.
Remember what happened to Shirley Porter? She should have gone to prison for what she did.
- Marc Dauncey, London
I am shocked at how some commentators here describe 'the poor' as 'them', as 'scroungers', somehow distinct from those of 'us' who 'scrimp and save' to pay for mortgages. Equating the ownership of a car with the ability to obtain and pay a mortgage is simplistic, at best. Perhaps, like the H&F Council, these opinions are based on the belief that 'the poor' are a subset of the species and do not deserve homes. Where exactly should we put these poor after the council has removed them from their homes (deserved or otherwise)? Perhaps 'they' could be shipped off to a place where gentrification has not yet made its influence felt. Somewhere that the Tory voters do not live, somewhere less nice. Somewhere where their votes (deserved or otherwise) will not count against the Tories who had them removed in the first place. This is, pure and simple, Gerrymandering. It is illegal.
I moved into the borough 25 years ago when it was still quite run down. Over the years the Labour council improved services and facilities, house prices rose and then the new Tory administration took over. Sadly, it seems that they, and some of the 1922 committee writing here, feel that only the wealthy can have a vote that counts, a decent home to live in, and live in London.
- Anita P, shepherds bush, uk
It will never happen. Turkey's dont vote for Christmas and will have the council out on its ear at the next election.
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, Hants
We welcome the news with open arms - well done Hammersmith and Fulham Council. It's about time this country woke up to the fact that there are far too many people living in social housing. And why shouldn't the old and the infirmed have preference over a single mother whose intention to get pregnant was a strategy to secure a council flat in the first place. Simply put, H&F council has finally realised the potential of the areas mentioned and that those of who who are scrimped and saved to buy a private home in these areas do not want to be surrounded by scroungers. Gentrification is not a bad word from the point of view of a home owner. Something is wrong with a culture when social housing is seen by many as a right of passage. Most of these estates were built up to 50 years ago to house the people who lost their homes in WWII. What useful purpose do they serve now apart from warehousing poverty and creating a downtrodden/"poor-me" culture?!
- James, London
Come on, since all you hard working lot seem to all agree that scroungers and the poor should be punished, forced to work and thrown out on the street...lets just build a few Concentration Camps with forced labourt..that should solve the problem of the idle poor. Then we can chuck a few more undesirables in there, maybe Unmarried Mums, how about Romainian Gypsies and beggers and drunks ..hey why not leave room for the useless Disabled and Old age Pesioners ( so what if its your mum !)
Seems this is the Policy that nmany seem to want and I thought Nazie ideas were dead and buried and we were a Christian orientated Country.
Wake up these ideas are another way for politicians to make money on the back of the working people and that includes you.
- Clif, London
"Social cleansing" of the poor?
That should account for everyone in the UK except BANKERS and MP's and LORDS.
- Reuben Camara, Republic of Morecambe, UK
This just shows that the Tories have learned nothing over the last 12 years. Where are these people going to go? Perhaps David Cameron can find room in is constuency.
If there was sensible rules over who can get social housing, then there would not be this witch hunt over people having multiple cars and children.
- Mary, London
Piffle, Andy. Stop trying to start a class war where there is none. Stop trying to condemn people to benefits just so they'll vote Labour.
http://bit.ly/18mwpA
- Keeprightonline.Com, London
The White City estate was built on the site of the 1908 Olympic Village, yes. It was built between 1939 and 1953 by the old LCC.
- Eddie Pringle, London UK
Labour pander to the poor and encourage them to multiply.It's all part of the dumbing down process so this will never happen.
- Steve, London
I agree with Jon, London. Most social housing estates house people who may have been in need years ago, but their circumstances have changed for the better. I know of one couple who earn over £100k between them, but still retain their Housing Association flat because it is in Westminster and only costs them £80 a week! I agree social housing should be available for those in need - but it should not be for life as it is now. Tenants income should be regularly accessed and those earning enough to afford private rent - or to buy - should have their tenancy revoked to free it up for another needy person.
- Phil, London, UK
So Jon, your genius contribution is that a council tenant who has the temerity to own a second-hand �1,000 car can afford a �400,000 flat...I'm sorry, I've just seen that you said house - so a �900,000 house in the surrounding area? It's supreme intelligence like this that is behind the Conservative ideas on housing.
- Aaron, London, England
Excellent news, why should the majority subsidise the "less well off" for housing.
Most of them have cars, so can afford a private flat or mortgage, like the rest of us.
- P Staker, London
Why should the rest of taxpayers pay for someone to get a discounted house. They really should be for those who really need them. If you can afford a car, foreign holidays and multiple kids, you can afford a house of your own. A bit of gentle persuasion to be more productive is not a bad thing.
- Jon, london
May I suggest dynamite?
- Steve, London
My mistake ...1908 olympic village.
- David, London
The journalist mentions the council estate at white city is he referring to the 1948 Olympic village that is sited opposite Queens park rangers football club?
- David, London
