- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by eastendhomes.
June 1, 2009 at 1:59 pm #103tritwnParticipant
Looking at EeH 2004 promises, what they DIDN’T tell us was that the
pre-transfer master regeneration plans for both, British Street and St
Georges estates, were not binding for them and that they were going to build
every available open amenity space in order to raise money for the
refurbishment that LBTH could not afford. Instead both, LBTH through the
Leaseholder Consultation Documents (LCD,)and EeH, told us that EeH was going
to regenerate both estates by ‘borrowing’ from the banks. It is interesting
that EeH soon after secured ownership of both estates, through tenants’ vote
only, realised that the refurbishment of both estates could not be financed
through bank borrowing alone and had to rely heavily on infill construction.
LBTH told leaseholders that their vote is not taken into consideration for
the transfer because their ‘status’ was not going to change by the transfer.
However, in consideration of the extensive infill construction and the
adverse impact it has in our property value and quality of life, our status
has not changed?November 10, 2020 at 6:08 pm #3742eastendhomesGuest
My Life as a Coder by Janet Tashjian : 9781250261793