At its inception in 1949 the Woodberry Down Estate adjoining the Stoke Newington reservoirs was the largest public housing estate in Western Europe. It was a pet project of Herbert Morrison, a former Mayor of Hackney, and was designed as a model London County Council estate with integrated schools, shops, communal facilities and a health centre. Its influence can clearly be seen in other similar estates such as the White City Estate. The original residents consisted in the main of families from the East End displaced by wartime bombing and the general turbulence of the immediate post-war period. In consequence there has always been a strong community spirit that has easily accommodated successive waves of newcomers, especially from the 'New Commonwealth', until fairly recently.
A marked decline began with the transfer of the estate in 1982 from the Greater London Council to Hackney Council. Housing resources were concentrated on traditionally Labour-voting areas nearer to the centre of Hackney, routine maintenance and repairs were neglected and the quality of housing management noticeably deteriorated. The estate increasingly attracted problems of squatting, drug-dealing and inner city deprivation. It nevertheless retained a robust tenants' movement and an enviable record for effective community policing.
In 1999 residents on the estate voted overwhelmingly for housing management responsibilities to be transferred to Paddington Churches Housing Association in the face of strident opposition from the Council's Labour group. Although resources remained restricted, there were some immediate improvements in the provision of basic services to the estate and useful innovations such as the pioneering introduction of neighbourhood wardens were funded from efficiency savings.
It was also agreed by a majority vote on the Council, again despite Labour obstruction, that the inclusion of Woodberry Down should be sought in a long-term regeneration programme centred on renovation of the housing stock and provision of enhanced community facilities. It was recognised that tenure on the estate would need to be opened up and opportunities for private development and finance maximised in favourable locations, especially where the condition of the existing dwellings made refurbishment impracticable or uneconomic. In 2000 the Government agreed that Woodberry Down should receive Single Regeneration Budget funding on that basis.
The following year the Council returned to Labour majority control. For Woodberry Down the intervening period has been marked by contant changes of plan, incessant consultations, a marked decline in housing and estate management services, increasing blighting and a collapse in residents' morale. Many have got out. Elderly residents complain that they are being dragooned to shift into inappropriate sheltered accommodation elsewhere. Whether older people or young families, remaining residents are fearful of a protracted period of increasing environmental degradation and deteriorating housing conditions. Leaseholders are left in limbo with the Council unwilling to give them any information or take decisions that would enable them to move on. Properties have been boarded up or increasingly occupied by short-let tenants. Hackney's old bane of dubious practice in the housing letting process appears to be re-emerging. There has been a significant increase in illegal occupation of property, drug-dealing and gang activity. Perhaps unsurprisingly many residents are convinced that Hackney Council has long been intent on surreptitious 'social cleansing' in an area where Labour's political support is limited.
The most recent proposals approved only nine months ago and still subject to continuing modification foresee the complete redevelopment of the estate over a period of ten to fifteen years very heavily dependent on private finance and a concentrated scale of social housing that appears tailor-made to reproduce the tower block squalors of the past. Fears that the principal developers, Berkeley Homes, would pull out as a result of the 'credit crunch' and last year's problems in the housing market have been temporarily assuaged by an injection of funds under the 'Kick Start Programme' but the whole project still appears fragile and the essential public funding element vulnerable to adjustments in public spending programmes inevitable in the next few years.
As always, the most telling comments on this saga of mismanagement and broken promises are by the residents themselves. Fairly typical of the complete alienation felt by many is the following: "Last time I voted Green, this time BNP. I don't care for either of them but I want to get my protest in".
.
A marked decline began with the transfer of the estate in 1982 from the Greater London Council to Hackney Council. Housing resources were concentrated on traditionally Labour-voting areas nearer to the centre of Hackney, routine maintenance and repairs were neglected and the quality of housing management noticeably deteriorated. The estate increasingly attracted problems of squatting, drug-dealing and inner city deprivation. It nevertheless retained a robust tenants' movement and an enviable record for effective community policing.
In 1999 residents on the estate voted overwhelmingly for housing management responsibilities to be transferred to Paddington Churches Housing Association in the face of strident opposition from the Council's Labour group. Although resources remained restricted, there were some immediate improvements in the provision of basic services to the estate and useful innovations such as the pioneering introduction of neighbourhood wardens were funded from efficiency savings.
It was also agreed by a majority vote on the Council, again despite Labour obstruction, that the inclusion of Woodberry Down should be sought in a long-term regeneration programme centred on renovation of the housing stock and provision of enhanced community facilities. It was recognised that tenure on the estate would need to be opened up and opportunities for private development and finance maximised in favourable locations, especially where the condition of the existing dwellings made refurbishment impracticable or uneconomic. In 2000 the Government agreed that Woodberry Down should receive Single Regeneration Budget funding on that basis.
The following year the Council returned to Labour majority control. For Woodberry Down the intervening period has been marked by contant changes of plan, incessant consultations, a marked decline in housing and estate management services, increasing blighting and a collapse in residents' morale. Many have got out. Elderly residents complain that they are being dragooned to shift into inappropriate sheltered accommodation elsewhere. Whether older people or young families, remaining residents are fearful of a protracted period of increasing environmental degradation and deteriorating housing conditions. Leaseholders are left in limbo with the Council unwilling to give them any information or take decisions that would enable them to move on. Properties have been boarded up or increasingly occupied by short-let tenants. Hackney's old bane of dubious practice in the housing letting process appears to be re-emerging. There has been a significant increase in illegal occupation of property, drug-dealing and gang activity. Perhaps unsurprisingly many residents are convinced that Hackney Council has long been intent on surreptitious 'social cleansing' in an area where Labour's political support is limited.
The most recent proposals approved only nine months ago and still subject to continuing modification foresee the complete redevelopment of the estate over a period of ten to fifteen years very heavily dependent on private finance and a concentrated scale of social housing that appears tailor-made to reproduce the tower block squalors of the past. Fears that the principal developers, Berkeley Homes, would pull out as a result of the 'credit crunch' and last year's problems in the housing market have been temporarily assuaged by an injection of funds under the 'Kick Start Programme' but the whole project still appears fragile and the essential public funding element vulnerable to adjustments in public spending programmes inevitable in the next few years.
As always, the most telling comments on this saga of mismanagement and broken promises are by the residents themselves. Fairly typical of the complete alienation felt by many is the following: "Last time I voted Green, this time BNP. I don't care for either of them but I want to get my protest in".
.
