Join us in our fight to protect our community and improve our homes.
This website was created by residents of White City Estate to stop the Council from ripping out the heart of our estate. We are in favor of improvements and some new homes for people on the housing register. But there are ways of delivering this without taking so much from those who already have so little. This is one of the most densely populated wards in the UK, and what little we have is already not enough. Condensing the community infrastructure and open spaces and then taking the land to bring hundreds more residents to share what is left does not improve our lives.
Residents have tried for the last three years to get the council to rethink its plans to demolish and rip up all the community facilities and open spaces in the center of the estate with their four-year redevelopment plan. They will not listen, so it is TIME for us to ACT. Residents elected to the White City Residents Association repeatedly tried to engage the council to discuss other options to deliver new homes that would benefit existing residents, but they would not listen. Of the £140 million that they expect to spend, none of it is earmarked for improving the homes of existing residents – it's all for their NEW residents, the vast majority of whom will have to have very high incomes to acquire a property. Their homes will have benefits that existing residents will not get.
The Council has a website that will tell you why everything they are doing is wonderful. What you won't find there is a balanced view. You won't find information about the negative impact on our health and our environment, for instance. This website was set up to give residents a chance to see the other side of the story. By looking at both sites, you can get a balanced view – What LBHF, the Developer, wants you to see and what DEFEND WHITE CITY ESTATE, the residents want you to see. They have tried to manipulate us and misrepresent our views to give the pretense that we, the residents, want them to do this to us (sometimes claiming that 98% of us approve of what they want to do – a big fat LIE). BUT really they know this plan is not what we want, which is why they have defied their own policies and will not give us a BALLOT.
“I think the buildings are too close to the existing blocks and this area is already fast becoming enclosed by high-rise buildings. I would like to ask the council if the residents are going to be compensated for the inconvenience i.e. noise, dust, and possibly having to keep our windows closed whilst all the work is going on. Also, if this goes ahead I wonder how long it will be before the council start proposals to demolish the estate and replace it with more high-rise flats!”
“Are there not any other plots in the borough that can be compulsory purchased? And it comes at the expense of what, 4 years of disruption - of noise from heavy machinery, dust, pollution, increased traffic from heavy lorries, loss of outdoor space, loss of green space/trees. Severe overcrowding, pressure on the struggling Victorian infrastructure - narrow roads that won't be able to cope with the increased volume of traffic, the roads around here are a joke as it is”
“The development would be directly opposite our building and will adversely affect our view. Apart from losing the view and the sunlight, we would lose the playground and the greenery right in front of our building which also adds value to our property.”
“There was no way that residents would be presented with both the pros and cons in an equivalent format at the Exhibition as it was a very neat demonstration of the underlying dynamics and premise of the Consultation which was structured to provide the Council with a partial rather than full view of the residents' views”
“Insufficient infrastructure to support more residents such as play areas, nursery, school - especially with the increase in population density from other local developments.”
“Allocations won't be fair. A parallel allocations/swap scheme should be organized within existing stock to help now. Never mind building new homes, some of which will not be occupied by White City Residents.”
“Residents MUST be included in the final choice”
“In the event residents oppose the plans, can the Council commit to revisit the plan again from scratch?”
“This 'meeting' seems to be a poor attempt to 'consult' on the residents when the proposal is clearly not in the interests of the residents. A fair open consultation with ALL residents is needed.”
“Residents of Evans House and Denham House who own vehicles or need mobility assistance vehicles are unaware that there will be no parking whatsoever in the intended development”
“They ask leading questions to get the answers they want.”
“My fear is that this consultation with residents is essentially a meaningless exercise since I imagine the plans are very much beyond the initial stages.”
“What the future will be if more and more people move in and less space for their children to play?”
At the same time that the council was reporting up to 98% support, the feedback White City Residents' Association (WCRA) received showed little support.
Residents' concerns include: 4 Years of demolition and redevelopment is too long. Loss of access through the estate during works will be intolerable. Pollution (Air and Noise). No discussion of compensation for residents enduring 4 years of demolition and building works. No discussion about respite or transfers for anyone with respiratory conditions or whose mental health suffers, particularly young children with asthma, ADHD or autism. Implications for increased costs to residents through bigger service charges. Height of new blocks would adversely affect view and light for some residents. RBEYC Nursery should be made bigger (using old Health Centre) not move it and make it smaller.
WCRA asked for feedback from a diverse group of residents about their concerns. Like the council “consultation” not every council resident of the estate was involved. But it should be noted how different these were from the council results.
The 4 year demolition and re-development program and the disruption it would cause, and the effect on peoples health and quality of life mattered to 95% of residents.
Another important matter to 86% of residents was the effect that having so many more residents would have on local services.
Two thirds of residents indicated that the scheme was too big and disapproved of whole of the central area of the estate being redeveloped. Nearly half of residents liked the idea of making some improvements but less than 5% liked most or all of what was being proposed by the council.
71% of residents were against building 270 new homes, in particular 83% objected to the 135 private rent/sale new homes. Though there was some support for increasing the number of homes on the estate by 80 if they were Social Rent properties with 57% in favour.
There was additionally concern about about filling the centre of the estate with new properties that were 5 or 6 storeys high, with 78% of residents against.
The majority of residents were against making changes to Bridget Joyce Square with 75% objecting to using it for traffic in to a new development.
Residents were in greatest agreement that they should all be given a vote with 90% stating that this was important.