Memorandum by Mrs Ruth Upfold (EMP 06)
I understand you are reviewing the whole situation
with regard to the Pathfinder initiatives and would like to express
my own view-point.
I am not an expert in these fields but I do live
in a Pathfinder area which I believe makes my opinions valid.
Some of my views may be relevant only to Hull as
we have been given no information as to what other Pathfinder
areas are planning or doing. This making it difficult to give
an objective overview.
In Hull the thinking seems to be:
we have
(a) several thousand empty houses in certain
areas of the city;
(b) social deprivation, exclusion and crime
in these areas;
therefore if we flatten the worst areas and build
new houses the problems will be solved.
Unfortunately this moves social problems elsewhere
and leaves several thousand people unable to buy a property to
replace the ones being demolished. As the proposal is to give
people only the value of their homes (in an area with price depression)
plus certain removal costs these people will be unable to afford
to buy a property elsewhere. They will be forced into council
accommodation if available or into renting from self-regulated
and therefore potentially unscrupulous landlords condemning them
to a life of greater poverty and to the margins of society.
I would suggest that although social deprivation
is higher where there is an excess low-standard housing the two
problems must be tackled individually.
With regard to excess low-standard housing:
(a) admittedly some areas in the current
Pathfinder areas should be flattened. The people living in these
houses could be offered newly-renovated houses either to rent
or buy in a similar or better condition and moved there free of
charge. I believe councils have the right to do this with council
properties—could this be extended to private properties?
These areas could be grassed over, turned into all-weather sports
courts or something similar.
(b) people also want playing areas for children
and secure car-parking near their homes. Again small clusters
of homes could be demolished to allow garages and small parks
to be created—again using the offer of as good or better
homes;
(c) people are prepared to move if they do
not lose out financially or accommodation-wise;
(d) local people could be employed and trained
to do these renovation works—giving valuable employment
and training opportunities for the marginalised;
(e) councils should have the right to compulsorily
purchase any empty properties or properties in bad condition and
if the owner cannot be traced to do this without their knowledge
or consent. They should also have the right to evict nuisance
residents from private properties;
(f) all landlords should be registered with
the local authority, subject to regular checks, de-listed and
obliged to sell their properties to the council if they fail to
meet the necessary standards which should be agreed in writing;
and
(g) better policing, the use of community
wardens, better street-lighting and cleaning would all help make
people feel more secure and settle in the area.
With regard to social exclusion, crime etc I
am not qualified but with regard to housing and nuisance neighbours
would make following comment:
I presume when councils evict anti-social tenants
they are given accommodation by private landlords in areas like
ours. Could each council have certain designated areas where such
people can be housed away from other law-abiding citizens?
To summarise—most people will move to
better or similar homes if they do not lose out financially. Many
of them would like to stay in the same area (in our case we'd
like to stay in our home if possible). Flattening the houses and
building luxury homes the locals cannot afford will widen social
exclusion and lead to greater poverty.
| 
