100 signatures reached
To: RBK Council
A fair ballot for residents on Kingston's Cambridge Road Estate
Cambridge Road Estate residents must have a free and fair ballot
Why is this important?
Since July 17th, Kingston Council has committed to holding a residents’ ballot regarding the regeneration of Cambridge Road Estate. This is a positive step forward much remains unclear about the detail, including the terms of the ballot and the cost; this is concerning to residents.
We the undersigned believe that, because of the risks posed to the future of residents on the estate through potential rent rises and the disruption to their lives, the ballot should represent a free and fair vote and that any associated campaign by RBK Council must honour this principle in a financially responsible manner.
To this end, we demand:
On the terms of the ballot:
· a legally binding ballot on the final proposals that the Council must honour (all viability assessments to be completed before the ballot)
· that only CRE residents should be balloted and every CRE resident over the age of 16 should be eligible to vote
· a simple yes/no question on whether the final plans of the regeneration should go ahead
· that because of the significant change occasioned by the regeneration, no change should take place unless a yes vote garners 50% support but, if there is a no vote or less than 50% of residents participate in the ballot, there must be an alternative programme of reinvestment in the estate, one that does not include wholesale demolition.
· that residents are informed of what any possible rent or council tax rises they may face on the new estate before the ballot takes place.
On the cost of the ballot:
· that all resources produced during the campaign by the Council contain a balanced assessment of the risks and opportunities of the plans; council resources should not be misspent on a partisan campaign for a yes vote by the Council. Campaign materials should also make residents aware of alternative options for reinvestment should residents not opt for wholesale demolition
· that the estimated cost of the ballot by the Council be reviewed; ballots of this kind cost, on average £5000 to implement, so the figure of £450,000, quoted by the Council is too high and a potential waste of resource. If necessary, costs could be reduced by training Norbiton’s Councillors, who, as local representatives, are duty bound to know the details of regeneration plans anyway, to distribute materials instead of paid Council staff.
· that any costs to the Council incurred by a no vote should not be passed on to residents. The low level of investment suffered by CRE historically means that the estate needs more investment in the future, not less.
We the undersigned believe that, because of the risks posed to the future of residents on the estate through potential rent rises and the disruption to their lives, the ballot should represent a free and fair vote and that any associated campaign by RBK Council must honour this principle in a financially responsible manner.
To this end, we demand:
On the terms of the ballot:
· a legally binding ballot on the final proposals that the Council must honour (all viability assessments to be completed before the ballot)
· that only CRE residents should be balloted and every CRE resident over the age of 16 should be eligible to vote
· a simple yes/no question on whether the final plans of the regeneration should go ahead
· that because of the significant change occasioned by the regeneration, no change should take place unless a yes vote garners 50% support but, if there is a no vote or less than 50% of residents participate in the ballot, there must be an alternative programme of reinvestment in the estate, one that does not include wholesale demolition.
· that residents are informed of what any possible rent or council tax rises they may face on the new estate before the ballot takes place.
On the cost of the ballot:
· that all resources produced during the campaign by the Council contain a balanced assessment of the risks and opportunities of the plans; council resources should not be misspent on a partisan campaign for a yes vote by the Council. Campaign materials should also make residents aware of alternative options for reinvestment should residents not opt for wholesale demolition
· that the estimated cost of the ballot by the Council be reviewed; ballots of this kind cost, on average £5000 to implement, so the figure of £450,000, quoted by the Council is too high and a potential waste of resource. If necessary, costs could be reduced by training Norbiton’s Councillors, who, as local representatives, are duty bound to know the details of regeneration plans anyway, to distribute materials instead of paid Council staff.
· that any costs to the Council incurred by a no vote should not be passed on to residents. The low level of investment suffered by CRE historically means that the estate needs more investment in the future, not less.
