The council [Lambeth] launched a consultation in November 2014, with groups set up to obtain residents’ views.
But Lambeth’s Cabinet member for housing wrote to residents on 26 February saying that even using a best-case scenario the lowest cost for refurbishment was still three times what the council could afford.
Cllr Bennett also said a paper would go before the council’s Cabinet recommending that the refurbishment options should not be consulted on further.
On 9 March 2015 Lambeth’s Cabinet resolved:
That the cost estimate to bring the estate up to the Lambeth Housing Standard (LHS) was £9.4m (an original LHS business plan had included a provision of £3.4m);
That there was then no provision for the cost of a refurbishment-only programme in the council’s LHS programme, and the council had a duty to say what was feasible within budgetary constraints;
To recommend that officers consult further on options for significant regeneration of the estate (as set out in the report) and that a viable regeneration proposal be brought back to the Cabinet in May 2015 with full supporting evidence;
That there was a commitment to work with residents to develop the regeneration proposals.
The claimant, Eva Bokrosova, subsequently challenged the decision to remove the refurbishment options from the consultation. set up to obtain residents’ views.
But Lambeth’s Cabinet member for housing wrote to residents on 26 February saying that even using a best-case scenario the lowest cost for refurbishment was still three times what the council could afford.
Cllr Bennett also said a paper would go before the council’s Cabinet recommending that the refurbishment options should not be consulted on further.
On 9 March 2015 Lambeth’s Cabinet resolved:
That the cost estimate to bring the estate up to the Lambeth Housing Standard (LHS) was £9.4m (an original LHS business plan had included a provision of £3.4m);
That there was then no provision for the cost of a refurbishment-only programme in the council’s LHS programme, and the council had a duty to say what was feasible within budgetary constraints;
To recommend that officers consult further on options for significant regeneration of the estate (as set out in the report) and that a viable regeneration proposal be brought back to the Cabinet in May 2015 with full supporting evidence;
That there was a commitment to work with residents to develop the regeneration proposals.
The claimant, Eva Bokrosova, subsequently challenged the decision to remove the refurbishment options from the consultation.”
The judge found that it was unlawful NOT to consult on the option councillors and officers felt was too expensive and which they had deleted.
East Devon Watch 