Memorandum by Merseyside Civic Society
(MCS) (EMP 10)
We are grateful for this opportunity to offer
comment on the issues raised by the Committee, many of which have
been a growing cause of concern to Merseyside Civic Society as
both the disturbing scale, and what we believe to be the misguided
direction, of HMRI activity in Merseyside have become almost daily
more apparent.
We recognise that very serious problems are
faced in securing the future of the housing stock in the areas
identified as the focus of attention as part of the Housing Market
Renewal Pathfinder scheme. However, we are convinced that the
approach adopted in Liverpool is very seriously flawed and is
causing widespread blight in areas of well-maintained housing—while,
at the same time, failing to inspire confidence that the "solution"
is not itself a bigger "problem" with which future generations
will be cursed.
This is partly a failure to appreciate, and
to demonstrate a constructive response to, the significant local
strengthening of the local residential property market that has
occurred since the sweeping measures featured in the initial HMRI
proposals were first adopted.
There are large numbers of sound properties,
of desirable character and size, that were deemed to be of negligible
market value at that time that are now clearly capable of commanding
a fair or worthwhile price in the market place. Yet these properties,
which, in other parts of the city, are much sought-after, are
condemned to seemingly "mindless" clearance and replacement
by mundane and unimaginative new-build development.
We are concerned that it is the owner-occupiers,
who have invested in their local area, who are losing out as a
consequence of a well-established pattern of behaviour that is
widely demonstrated by registered social landlords and the local
authority in "problem" areas in which they have failed
to re-invest in their own properties. They next proceed to systematically
pull out, or terminate the leases of, the occupants of their properties
before boarding them up, thus reinforcing the impression of decline
and dereliction.
This has an immediate blighting effect on the
area and, in particular, on the values of the sometimes isolated
owner-occupied properties that remain. What are they to do in
this situation? They are offered the opportunity to sell to the
RSL/local authority at a price that is depressed, primarily as
a consequence of the RSL/local authority's own failure to act
to maintain its own property—before, ultimately, they are
obliged to sell, at an even lower price, under the inevitably
unattractive terms of a compulsory purchase order.
The whole enterprise smacks of a conspiracy
between the RSLs and local authority to "carve up" the
local property market between themselves—with no opportunity
for the local community and affected residents to have a say in
how the future of "their" area is to be determined.
This is quite apart from any consideration of the essentially
desirable character of the properties—and the potentially
considerable "life" that remains in them.
We are concerned that, in these circumstances,
there seems to be no objective assessment of the qualities of,
and opportunities to improve, the properties that have been left
empty or even those that remain in proud occupation—and
that the whole process lacks the scrutiny to which even the slum
clearances of the 1950's and 1960's were subjected, over which
independent inspectors had the opportunity to adjudicate.
We are aware of strong local opposition to the
New Heartlands funded demolition that is proposed in at least
the following areas: Bedford Road/Queens Road (Sefton MBC), The
Welsh Streets, The Groves and Edge Lane and Edge Hill (Liverpool).
We also understand that there are deep concerns,
on the part of open space, amenity and environmental groups, that
HMRI funding is being used to prepare precious local green space
for development for both residential and other purposes at South
Park/Stanley Gardens in Sefton and, potentially, at Newsham Park
in Liverpool.
Fundamentally, we believe that there is much
more scope for the imaginative use of local authority powers to
secure the large-scale refurbishment of residential properties
and to enlist the support of existing residents in contributing
to the retention of neighbourhoods of enduring quality and character—rather
than to pursue the "simpler" approach of first getting
rid of the people then sweeping away vast swathes of Victorian
heritage housing and replacing it with the uninspiring offerings
of the private sector housing developer.
Some demolition or clearance is likely to prove
necessary and may, indeed, be desirable.
However, as a matter of principle, clearance
should only be resorted to when all other avenues of regenerative
refurbishment have been fully explored. Further, that critical
exploration should not be open to direct influence and manipulation
by agencies that have a vested interest in the simple expedient
of wholesale clearance and new-build.
What is apparent is that the continued commitment
to the wiping out of 20,000 houses, when local economic conditions
and, in particular, the local residential property market, have
improved so dramatically, is now entirely unjustified, inappropriate
and needs to be reviewed with urgency before the bulldozers have
been unleashed to do their worst.
| 
