Saturday, 28 November 2009

What price security?



Kimpton House in Fontley Way on the Alton estate is, unfortunately, a greater focus for anti-social behaviour and crime than some of the others. One of the reasons for this is that, alone among the six Fontley Way blocks, it doesn't have a controlled entry system.

And the reason that's the case is that, again alone among the Fontley Way blocks, Kimpton House contains a (big) majority of leaseholders who effectively hold a veto over plans to make such changes because they are liable for the costs of the work. 31 of the 45 flats here have been sold off by the council - not only high for the Alton but strange given that the average for the other Fontley blocks is 8. Such quirks, incidentally, don't happen by accident - it was Conservative policy to target blocks for sell-offs right across Wandsworth, and this is one of the consequences.

I've just had an email from the council telling me that they're going to try and persuade Kimpton House to vote for controlled entry in the New Year. But they go on to tell me that the cost of such work will saddle leaseholders with £1,500 bills.

Just think about that for a minute. £1,500 per flat. 45 flats. £67,500 in total. To fit some secure doors and provide entryphones in each flat. Is it any wonder that the leaseholders vote "no" when presented with such absurdly inflated costs by the Conservatives?

Council contractors are notorious for thinking that council funded contracts are cash cows where over the top quotes can be submitted with impunity: in one case a quote to provide a few flowerbaskets came back at more than £1,000 per basket - but was eventually whittled down to less than £200 - including maintenance costs!

For £67,500, I'd expect gold-plated doors and entryphone systems. Well, not quite, but you get the point. Kimpton House deserves greater security of the sort the other Fontley Way blocks have benefited from for years. They could get it; but not while the Conservatives keep trying to impose extortionate charges on leaseholders.

Labels: , , , , ,