Supplementary memorandum by Alan Wilson,
Chairman, Goole Action Group (EMP 31(d))
On reading the memoranda submitted by Riverside
Group ("Riverside") I feel compelled to respond to a
number of inaccurate assumptions and conclusions.
EMPTY HOMES
1.1 I feel that large housing groups such
as Riverside must accept the major share of responsibility for
the decline in their areas. They do have the power to regenerate,
by careful management of their streets, and the empowerment of
the residents and landlords. Unfortunately, housing associations
such as Riverside believe that their responsibility ends when
the bathroom or kitchen are replaced. They take very little stock
of the external and environmental conditions. I believe that one
way to ensure people remain in their environment and play a key
part in its sustainability is to ensure that attitudes and environment
are fully repaired before the kitchens and bathrooms are replaced.
1.2 A repaired and renewed community that
has accepted responsibility for its own regeneration will do more
to kick start any regeneration programme and in a far quicker
turn round time, and at a far lower cost, than any demolition
programme.
1.3 Makes the assumptions that social housing
is in some way "more decent" than private homes and
that this is an indicator as to whether or not the community is
sustainable. Anyone who has ever lived in a such a community knows
that it is not the state of the property that is the "sustaining"
fact, but the attitudes and environment of the people who live
there.
1.4 The whole concept of using empty homes
as a negative indicator is flawed. Homes can be empty for a number
of reasons, illness, death, sale, renovation. Before inclusion
in any statistics the reason for its "emptiness" should
be established and included or excluded as appropriate.
1.5 This statement is amazing. Have Riverside
never heard of property auctions? There are thousands of established
and potential property developers that would readily accept the
challenge of "obsolescent housing stock", and managing
the problems of "heat loss, poor light levels, inadequate
parking, and lack of privacy". The truth of the matter is
that housing associations are more interested in profit that renovating
the character and heritage of such housing. If the housing associations
are not up to the challenge of renovation, the housing associations
must then be prepared to release the property to people and organisations
that are, and at the earliest opportunity.
1.6 Area based improvement programmes fail
because they do not tackle the real factors of decline. Throwing
money at property in the forms of grants means nothing unless
the residents accept responsibility for their environment. But
you will not involve the community until you can convince them
that their views and concerns count, and that they, the community,
will be included in any decision making process.
1.7 According to Lord Rogers, one of the
founding fathers of Pathfinder, Pathfinder has more than teething
problems. In the Daily Telegraph 26 February 2005, he calls
for a major rethink. Lord Rogers says: "We recommended very
strongly that you should first of all conserve existing buildings
wherever possible, for they are part of our history and create
a spirit of place. If we can use buildings which already exist,
that strengthens the concept of the urban renaissance, the liveable
city. After seven years we still do not have a development that
we can be proud of."
Pathfinder certainly is "making massive
changes to lives". In my home town of Goole, 100 families
will lose their homes if demolition goes ahead. There are no spare
houses in Goole, so therefore the demolition of these houses will
lead to a huge increase in house prices, as housing stock is depleted.
The majority of home owners will move from a non-mortgage situation,
into one where for the first time in many years they will have
to pay for the roof over their head.
Landlords, who invested in property as part
of their pension fund, now find that this avenue of pension has
been suitably squashed. I would have expected another 20 years
of income—approx £85,000, less maintenance (£20,000),
yet no compensation is paid for this loss of income.
| 
