Tag Archives: Freedom of Information

Should this type of charging be communicated to leaseholders?

Background

A leaseholder noticed that the 2015/16 service charge had a large difference between the estimated and actual costs and from this a set of communications with the Council followed.

What created the query?

The actual and estimated service charges were compared and the following highlights how the difference, in percentage terms, was quite large.

What was the Council’s response?

When queried with the Council the following feedback was received;

“There has been a relatively high increase in this years service charges for lighting. This is due to the costs incurred by the Council from the electricity company. You may have noticed that service charges for the most recent years previous to 2015/16 have been somewhat low. This is due to the electricity company under billing the Council. This year however, the electricity company have risen the cost to include a back payment for the years that they did not charge an increase on. You will note from your Summary of Costs that the estimate for lighting for the period of 2016/17 is lower then this years, as it is expected the Council will not be billed such a high amount”.

The follow up ask of the Council?

In order to progress this further the leaseholder has requested the following information under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request;

“1.Please provide the correspondence from the electricity company which highlighted the under billing of electricity.

2.Please provide all correspondence that took place between the electricity company and the Council regarding this under billing”.

This was requested on 17 August 2018 and surprisingly the Council has yet to provide this information. When there has been an issue with a FOI request one can ask the Council for an Internal Review, and this has been done. It is hoped that this information is received soon.

Want to see the answers to the questions above?

If you would like to have a copy of the Council’s response (when the query is actually answered) you can email Foiw@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk and ask for the information provided to Freedom of Information request reference 2018/17505.

Do you think the Council should have communicated this?

By not communicating this situation with the electricity charges, does this mean that other service charge amendments occur that leaseholders are not aware of?

Caveats

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

Receive articles into your inbox when uploaded on the blog

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Here it is the start of the water sprinkler Tribunal

Introduction

Well, the muchly anticipated First Tier Property Tribunal (FTPT) seems to have begun in a panic? Letters rushed out the door to leaseholders and notices sticky taped to flat entrances, no mentions in the weekly Brightside emails nor the daily Wandsworth@6 emails. Let’s take a look at the various paragraphs and see what they say. Also, the timing of this might be worth a review as its summer holidays and, just in case you felt like raising a challenge through the Opposition party even the Opposition Leader of the Housing and Regeneration and Overview Scrutiny Committee (HROSC) Council meetings where retro fitting water sprinklers is discussed is on holiday.

Why isn’t a link to the documents on the Council’s website in the letter?

Some of the documents are online so why not point readers there?

The below will take you to the links;

  1. First Tier Property Tribunal – Proposal to fit sprinklers
  2. Proposal to fit sprinkler systems to high-rise residential blocks

The funding question, haven’t we seen this before?

Yes, the text from the letter which states that “In the event that sprinklers are fitted to your block, I can confirm that the Council has agreed to extend the interest free repayment period for resident leaseholders from 10 to 48 months” is part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request which the Council has yet to answer and has become, at the time of writing this blog, a Stage 2 complaint.

Timescales?

Well, if you want to be in it to win it, then – “Please note that if you wish to comment on the application or be involved in the proceedings you should complete the reply form and return it to the tribunal with a copy to the Council’s legal representatives. Details are on the reply form itself” and that “These must be submitted by Friday 7th September 2018”.

What’s the notification process to residents?

Whilst not in the letter itself, this is in the Preliminary Directions which, on a best efforts basis, has been typed up below,

“Steps to be taken by the council

  1. The applicant shall serve all potential respondents by 17 August 2018, with copies of the following documents:
  • The application form;
  • The 45-paragraph Case Summary of the application (the non-technical explnantion for lessees).
  • These preliminary directions, including the pro forma Reply Form.
  1. At the same time, the applicant shall display a copy of the application form and these directions in a prominent position in the common parts of the affected properties and, if possible, upload copies to a publicly-available web site, where they are likely to come to the attention of leaseholders in the borough.
  1. The applicant shall confirm to the tribunal in writing that this has been done, with appropriate details including any relevant web site address”.

If you feel that the Council has not followed this process, it might be worthwhile informing the FTPT regarding this.

Caveats

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

Receive articles into your inbox when uploaded on the blog

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section. Please note that if an email is sent any response might be part of a generic group email.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Questions to the Council regarding the £3,000 to £4,000 water sprinkler charge

Introduction

There seems to have been a lack of detail with regards to various aspects of the proposal to retro fit water sprinklers into tall buildings. So, to try and start obtaining some answers a Freedom of Information (FOI) has been raised which askes the following questions.

The FOI request

There is an error in the request below in that the dated should be ‘14th September 2017’ and not ‘14th September 2018’.

QUOTE

Dear FOI team,

With regards to Housing and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14th September 2018 Paper 17-269 stated the following –

“17. As these  costs  (approximately  £3,000  to  £4,000) will be  imposed  upon  leaseholders with relatively  short notice,  it  is recommended  that,  with  respect  to  the  cost  of  the  sprinkler systems only,  existing  repayment  arrangements  for resident  leaseholders be  extended from  ten  months  to  48  months.  An  extension  beyond  48  months  may  draw  criticism  from other leaseholders  facing  relatively  substantial bills for major works, for example  in 2015/16  1,231  leaseholders were billed  for  major works charges in  excess of  £3,000.”

Service charges

With relation to service charges comment can the following information be provided;

  1. In 2016/17 how many leaseholders were billed for major works in excess of £3,000?
  2. With regards to the answer in Question 1, how many of these leaseholders are within the 99 blocks that are planned to have water sprinklers retro fitted?
  3. With regards to Question 2, how many of these leaseholders paid, with reference to 2016/17 major works service charges, less than £3,000, between £3,001 and £5,000, between £5,001 and £7,000, between £7,001 and £9,000, and more than £9,000?
  4. With the above three questions can this be provided by resident leaseholders and non-resident leaseholders per ward.

Regarding 48 months extended payment;

  1. Will the payment terms be 48 monthly payments? For instance, if the service charge is £4,000 will that be £83.33 per month.
  2. If the answer to the above is no, then please detail how this will work with an example.
  3. Will the extended payment terms be interest free?

UNQUOTE

FOI reference

This is ‘2018/17276 – Water sprinklers’.

Can you get the answers to these questions?

It is estimated that the answers should be received on 10 August 2018. You can contact the FOI team and ask them for the answers. Their contact details can be found at the Council’s ‘Freedom of Information Act’ webpage.

Caveats

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

Receive articles into your inbox when uploaded on the blog

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

 

What happened to the planning application for 66 Alton Road?

Background

You may remember that recently there was a planning application for demolish 66 Alton Road, SW15 4NJ. This was covered within planning application 2017/3082.

What happened?

There were many objections from various individuals, local groups and other concerned stakeholders. This planning application was withdrawn and it is assumed that this may be due to, in a large part due to the weight of the objections.

Unfortunately, the planning application objections have been removed from the Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) online planning information. A Freedom of Information was put to WBC asking for a copy of the objections, though (again), unfortunately, this will not be provided unless one chooses to go WBC’s offices. If you wish to see what questions were put to WBC about this and what the answer was, please approach the Freedom of Information team with the Request for Information – 2017/15634.

Does this mean it’s all over?

Definitely not, for anyone that followed the Roehampton University portacabin situation, it would be realised that this went through three planning applications (2015.5648, 2016/1385, 2016/5912) before it was accepted. It will be down to residents to be viligant in seeing whether more planning applications are submitted.

What was done to challenge the application?

Lots of lobbying of individuals and various groups such as the Victorian Society and the Putney Society Buildings Panel were asked to provide objections

A petition was created on Change.org titled ‘Object to demolition of 66 Alton Road SW15’ which was very successful and as this article is published it has about 400 signatures on it along with a lot of comments from objectors.

At least three articles were published on the putneysw15 website;

It is believed that the main individual which launched the petition and lobbied many of the individuals and groups to provide objections may not be repeating the efforts should a further planning application be submitted. In other words, other local residents may need to start getting prepared to take up the challenge (and it might be worth following up on the Freedom of Information request so you may try to contact those that objected to the first planning application).

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Retro-fitting of water sprinklers discussed at Borough Residents Forum (11 January 2018)

At the Housing and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 18th January 2018, Agenda item 3 – ‘Borough Residents’ Forum – Report of meeting on 11th January 2018 (Paper No. 18-11)’ was discussed.

The retro-fitting of water sprinklers was discussed under section ‘Par. 2. Fire safety update (Paper No. 18-12)’ and the comments were;

______________________

“We received a report (Paper No. 18-12) by the Director of Housing and Regeneration on retro-fitting sprinklers in high rise blocks in the Council’s housing stock and an update concerning recladding works to Sudbury House, SW18 (Southfields) and Castlemaine, SW11 (Latchmere).

The Council’s response to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower is underpinned by the absolute commitment to improve fire safety for all the residents of the authority’s high-rise stock. In accordance with expert advice this included bringing our blocks up to current new build standards through a proposed programme of retro fitting sprinklers.

In recognition of concerns raised by some leaseholders over the proposed works, the report recommends that the Council makes a proactive application to a First Tier Property Tribunal to ensure that the leaseholders’ voice is listened to and to seek a clear decision on the Council’s ability to undertake the works. Leaseholders would be encouraged to submit their views to the Tribunal and their points would be fully considered before any decision was made. In addition, the report details the revised advice from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority in regards automatic fire suppression systems and provides an update on recladding works which have commenced at Sudbury House, SW18 (Southfields) and are due to be undertaken at Castlemaine, SW11 (Latchmere).

On 6th December 2017, the Assistant Commissioner Dan Daly, Head of Fire Safety and the LFEPA, issued a Refreshed Sprinkler Position Statement to LFEPA members. The refreshed position on “Automatic Fire Suppression Systems is that the LFEPA recommend AFSS in:

Residential premises

While current Building Regulations recognise that all new residential buildings in excess of 30m height should be provided with AFSS, LFB are of the opinion that this should be extended to existing buildings and that the appropriate height is 18m in both cases on the basis of a risk assessment of the buildings. The LFB have, therefore, recommended AFSS are fitted in:

  • All new residential developments over 18m in height (which is equivalent to 6

storeys).

  • Existing residential blocks over 18m in height (retrofitting), subject to a risk based

approach that should include consideration of the vulnerability of the residents.

Schools

  • AFSS is mandatory in all new school builds and as part of major refurbishments.

Care homes and sheltered (specialised) accommodation

  • and sheltered (specialised) accommodation.
  • Existing residential care homes and sheltered (specialised) accommodation (retrofitting), subject to a risk based approach that should include consideration of the vulnerability of the residents.

Other priorities

  • All homes occupied by the most vulnerable in our communities.
  • All other residential properties which include hotels, hostels and student accommodation, over 18m in height.
  • All new London Fire Brigade buildings.”

The report in particular identifies the intention to retrofit sprinkler systems in the Council’s sheltered schemes. The Director of Resources comments that a positive Housing Revenue Account capital budget variation of £24 million was approved in July 2017 (Paper No. 17-243) specifically in relation to the installation of sprinklers in Council owned social housing blocks of ten floors and above. Should the scheme be extended to include sheltered housing properties in line with the London Fire Brigade’s updated advice, a further positive Housing Revenue Account capital budget variation would need to be recommended for approval at the appropriate time as there is presently no financial provision made.

With regards to the cladding costs at Sudbury House and Castlemaine a positive Housing Revenue Account budget variation of £6 million was also originally approved in July 2017. Due to the increase in the estimated cost of these works it is now necessary to include an additional provision totalling £12.286 million in the Housing Revenue Account framework and capital bids considered elsewhere on this agenda for approval.

In response to questions we were advised that the cost of the cladding works would not be re-charged to leaseholders as the cladding has now been determined to be defective, and as such must be removed. The Director of Housing and Regeneration explained that the Leader of the Council and the Housing and Regeneration Department have made written representations to the Government requesting assistance with the costs for both re-cladding and the retro-fitting of sprinklers. The Director added that a meeting has been organised with civil servants to discuss this issue further albeit it is possible that the Government may only be willing to offer loans, or extend permission to borrow rather than a grant.

Ms Ireland, speaking on behalf of Edgecombe Hall Estate RA, stressed that the leaseholders she had spoken to were very suspicious and concerned that the Council would not disclose the legal advice it had received to residents in relation to the retrofitting of sprinklers. The Director of Housing and Regeneration advised that despite the legal advice being privileged (as a matter of course a council would not release legal advice where this might be required to defend a council’s action in future litigation) and exempt from Freedom of Information requests, the Council had made public the clause in the standard Wandsworth right to buy lease. In the view of counsel the Council reserves the right “to do such things as the Council may decide are necessary to ensure the efficient maintenance, administration or security of the Block”. The Director added that the legal opinion is that this provision enables the Council to retro-fit sprinklers in individual leasehold flats. However, as it is only opinion, the Council proposes to make a proactive application to a First Tier Property Tribunal to test that opinion and ensure that leaseholders are given an opportunity to make their case; and to seek a clear decision on the Council’s ability to undertake the works, i.e. the Tribunal would determine whether the legal opinion gives the Council the right to retro-fit sprinklers.

The Director of Housing and Regeneration stated that he fully understood and appreciated that leaseholders and residents would have concerns regarding disruption and aesthetics associated with retro fitting sprinklers in their homes. In recognition of these concerns, officers are currently fitting out a sprinkler “show flat” which would demonstrate the most up to date and unobtrusive sprinkler systems currently available and which may be viewed by residents and elected members for their information in due course.

The Director of Housing and Regeneration stressed that safety of our residents is of paramount importance to the Council. The Director advised that the assumption that concrete blocks are always safe and that fires only spread in cladded blocks is not correct. The Director referred to the fire in Manchester on 30th December 2017 where fire had spread to multiple floors of a 12-storey block (the fire had started on the ninth floor and spread to the eighth, tenth and eleventh floors before it was brought under control); and in Belfast in November 2017 where the blaze damaged flats on the ninth and tenth floors before it was brought under control. The Director also advised of a lender now declining mortgage applications for properties not fitted with sprinklers which may raise further concerns for the Council’s leaseholders. Clearly, by retro-fitting sprinklers, the Director advised that the Council would also be seeking to protect leaseholder’s interests in their property.

Concerns were raised that based on the quality of some major works resulting in ongoing snagging, reassurance would be required that the same would not apply to the retro-fitting of sprinklers. The Director of Housing and Regeneration advised that the Council’s Major Works Programme across our estates was in the region of £30 million. He added that just because one contract was not going well did not mean that other contracts were not progressing well. The Director accepted that there would be concerns about the retro-fitting programme if residents had had a bad experience with works to their block, and stated that the retro-fitting programme needed to be and would be well managed.

In response to questions on how consultation with leaseholders was envisaged by officers, it was confirmed that the best method of how resident views could be gathered was still being considered by officers. The Assistant Director stressed that the Council wished to encourage residents to put their views forward so consultation with individuals would still take place. In addressing the Tribunal, it was suggested that views may be best presented through a ‘conduit’/a representative group putting the views of residents as opposed to individuals addressing the Tribunal. The Assistant Director was open to receiving views from Forum members on how to develop the consultation process with residents. He also confirmed that the Housing and Regeneration Department had details of those who had objected to the retro-fitting of sprinklers.

Concern was raised that as the cladding costs had increased by 100% from the original estimate of £6 million to an estimated cost of £12.286 million (to include an additional provision), would the estimated cost of retro-fitting sprinklers also increase. The Director of Housing and Regeneration advised that Wandsworth was a defined geographic area and one of the largest contract areas for the retro-fitting of sprinklers in London given the number of residential towers in its ownership. As such, the Director was hopeful that these factors would help to drive down prices given the scale of contract that would be awarded. We were further advised that currently such work represented a small market, but the industry would grow as demand increased further for the retro-fitting of sprinklers.

The Opposition Speaker of the Housing and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor White, requested a breakdown of the additional costs for the cladding work and questioned why the increase in re-cladding works had occurred. Officers agreed that this information would be made available to Councillor White but that aspects of the information might be commercially confidential which could limit the level of information that could be made public. The Director of Housing and Regeneration advised that our consultants have explained the reasons for the increases in costs and have stated that the market has moved to a risk averse position given that such works would have a very high level of visibility and reputational profile. The Director added that the successful tenderer was still considerably cheaper than the other tenderers despite the increase in costs. The Assistant Director (Housing Management) was also able to confirm that other councils in London had also seen significant increases in costs relative to original cost estimates. In response to further questions, the Assistant Director (Housing Management) advised that the cause of the fire at Grenfell was the subject of an on-going enquiry. However, the Assistant Director stated that non-flammable products must be used to replace cladding that does not meet standards and present a significant fire hazard. We noted the contents of the report”.

____________

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Questions to Council about the Medfield Street fountain and troughs

Related to the other various articles on the ward’s cattle troughs, the following has been asked of Wandsworth Borough Council  via a Freedom of Information request;

“There is a Grade II listed monument at the intersection of Roehampton Lane and Medfield Street in SW15 which contains both fountains and cattle troughs.

 Can Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) please confirm the following;

  1. What, if any, responsibility has WBC with regards to this monument?
  2. Is it only WBC whom has any responsibility for the monument?
  3. If other individuals or organisations of any sort have any interest or responsibility in the monument then please list whom they are and what their interests and responsibilities are?
  4. Within the past three years has any individual or group, such as the Drinking Fountain Association or Wandsworth Council, been in touch with WBC regarding this monument?
  5. If the answer to question 4 is yes, then can it be detailed when this contact took place and what was purpose of the contact?
  6. Please detail what the maintenance of the monument should be?”

The Council has responded to the above question, and the Drinking Fountain Association has been in touch with them about the monument. Have a read of the questions at the whatdotheyknow website by clicking on this sentence.

The Freedom of Information request number for this query is 2017/14364.

Related articles:

 

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Questions to TfL about the Medfield Street fountain and troughs

Related to the other various articles on the ward’s cattle troughs, the following has been asked of TfL via a Freedom of Information request;

“There is a Grade II listed monument at the intersection of Roehampton Lane and Medfield Street in SW15 which contains both fountains and cattle troughs.

 Can TfL please confirm the following;

  1. What, if any, responsibility TfL has with regards to this monument?
  2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then what are these responsibilities?
  3. Within the past three years has any individual or group, such as the Drinking Fountain Association or Wandsworth Council, been in rock with TfL regarding this monument?
  4. If the answer to question 3 is yes, then can it be detailed when this contact took place and what was purpose of the contact?”

And TfL has kindly responded to the above queries. What do you think the answers are? Click on this paragraph to have a read of the answers.

The TfL reference for this query is 2140-1617.

 Related articles:

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Local resident shares photos of cattle trough

Thank you to Mr George Hebborn for kindly sharing photos of the Norstead Place cattle trough when it was in bloom.

6836c81b1b2442f9a1cc76567c456e0e

c340b962904c4713bda5ec3bcad4753e

Related articles:

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Peter Carpenter – pcarpenter@wandsworth.gov.uk

Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk

Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch

Missing cattle trough has gotten interesting

The below refers to a Freedom of Information ask which has been made of the Council with regards to the Norstead Place cattle trough. Let’s see what the response will be.

“This is a follow up to Freedom of Request 2016/13735.

A letter (dated 4 November 2016) has been sighted which is from the Drinking Fountain Association. This letter states the following – “We did write to the Chief Executive of Wandsworth Council in June last year asking whether the Council had any intention to restore the trough and asking for their view of if it would be used in its present location. The Council replied saying it was no longer under their jurisdiction and was now under the control of Transport for London who agreed to its removal”.

As a result of this letter the following questions/asks are raised:

  1. Please provide a copy of the letter which the Drinking Fountain Association sent to the Chief Executive of Wandsworth Council in June last year.
  2. Please provide a copy of the response which the Council provided to the Drinking Fountain Association.
  3. When did the Council hand control of the cattle trough to Transport for London?
  4. Please provide the documentation which ceded control of the cattle trough to Transport for London”.

To track progress refer to this link – https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/norstead_place_cattle_trough

Related articles:

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Peter Carpenter – pcarpenter@wandsworth.gov.uk

Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk

Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch