Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Written Evidence


Supplementary memorandum by David R J Penney (EMP 28(b))

PERSONAL VIEW AS A MEMBER OF THE SHADOW BOARD OF ELEVATE EAST LANCASHIRE HMR PATHFINDER

ALLOCATION OF BUDGETS 2004-05—2005-06

(a)   Proposed Programme: Resources

  2.1  The Chief Executive asked that this information be kept confidential. The £103 million two year programme was agreed: £22.84 million for Year one and £45.16 million for Year two = £68 million [+£35 million from EPs, HC, NWDA] "These amounts are indicated within the formal legal agreement that has been entered into between the ODPM, the County Council (as the Accountable Body) and the five Borough Councils". [eg Pendle receives £12.81 million over two years subject to Outputs].

(b)   Outputs—legally binding contract

  2.2  The legal agreement with the ODPM does include a schedule showing the outputs/outcomes that it is intended to deliver by the end of each of the two years—see table below for details.

  2.3  It should be noted that delivery responsibility for the Programme and its Outputs ultimately rests with the five Local Authorities supported by Elevate.
Outcomes2004-05 2005-06Total
Homes wholly demolished223 567790
Homes Acquired:360486 846
New homes constructed and occupied58 73131
Homes refurbished to Decent Homes standard 174340514
Homes refurbished to sub-decent Homes standard 120561681
Number of homes subject to additional management measures designed to overcome low demand 33,67439,530n/a
Number of homes subject to non-housing works on land and built environment 19,70023,600n/a


  2.4  The amounts of money allocated for each Local Authority is subject to variation. In other words, if a LA does not deliver its performance targets/outputs on individual projects and the overall programme (ADFs), monies could be taken away and transferred elsewhere [ie another LA in East Lancashire]—the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair, has the power to make reduction of up to 10% of an Authority's allocation. Any reductions of more than 10% would have to be referred to the Board for a decision.

  2.5  Other Resources:

    —    18 million from Housing Corporation over two years—new resources directed to Housing Associations;

    —    £12 million from English Partnerships over two years—new resources directed for specific projects in parallel with HMR Programme; and

    —    £5 million from NWDA—new resources directed for specific projects in parallel with the HMR Programme. These monies are subject to re-profiling of NWDA expenditure in relation to SRB and other programmes.

(c)   Emphasis on Demolition

  2.6  The implication of the above legal framework and conditions on implementation of the Programme confirms what I had thought and heard—namely, a policy of Land Acquisition, mass Demolition and Clearance (47% of two year Budget) of whole blocks of terraced housing (not just isolated, selected, "rotten tooth" houses) are a first priority action and a necessary prerequisite for drawing down other monies for the rest of the Programme. If LAs fail to deliver on Demolition, they will lose monies allocated to them.

  2.7  This policy is demonstrated by the list of "Projects and Proposals beginning in 2004-05". In all five LA areas, there will be acquisition, demolition and clearance of rows of terraced properties. For instance, in Burnley, there will be clearance projects in the three ADFs across Daneshouse, Burnley Wood and South West areas of the town, while in Pendle, there will be clearance projects in Newmarket Street area of Colne (Mason and Bright Streets) and in the canal area of Brierfield, on both sides of Clitheroe Road. Pendle's other projects, in the first year, include setting up Neighbourhood Management and Master-planning schemes, as well as Home Improvement and Maintenance work in Brierfield and a Group Repair scheme in Nelson's St Mary's Conservation Area (Phase 2) but no renovation projects in Waterside, Colne, which is what the residents wanted.

  2.8  No wonder, Elevate and the Councils want to keep the wraps on this controversial information! But the "cat is out of the bag"—this information is already in the public domain. The Leader of Burnley BC said at a Public Meeting in South West Burnley that "200 homes would have to be demolished by the end of April (2005) to keep in line with spending targets, and warned that if the first tranch of the money was not spent by 31 March 2005, the cash would go to another authority"—moral blackmail. (Burnley and Pendle Citizen, 8 April 2004). This was followed up by a statement form Burnley BC's Project Co-ordinator for Elevate that "Sometimes for the better future planning of the area we may have to take down blocks that are in better condition than others and are not empty". (Burnley and Pendle Citizen, 29 April 2004) The same legal requirement for demolition was admitted to me by the Leader of Pendle BC.

  2.9  So, what is the chance of overturning a decision to demolish blocks/rows of terraces in Colne (Mason and Bright Streets), Brierfield, Burnley (eventually, when Nelson gets its ADF) and the other ADFs in East Lancashire, with such a legal millstone/straight-jacket round the necks of Elevate and the Councils? While Waterside, Colne, overwhelming resisted demolition, which was not included in the first full version of the ADF, there are legal pressures to put demolition back on the Agenda in future years—Years three onwards of the 15 year Elevate Programme- for such areas as Hawley, Thomas and Laithe Streets in the Lower South Valley, Waterside, Colne, particularly if they pursue extending new housing developments on the Knotts Lane Allotments.

  2.10  In the meantime, residents will be fighting an uphill battle to save their homes from demolition in areas like Mason and Bright Streets, Colne, unless there is an overwhelming united voice against it. The Councils are hoping to reduce resistance by picking on "soft" areas with a high proportion of private landlords (who would make a fat profit from the compensation from compulsory purchase orders), "rotten tooth" and void properties.

(d)   What does Consultation with the Community mean? Is demolition inevitable?

  2.11  It could be just a paper exercise—tell the residents what the Council intends to do and warn them that they have to demolish blocks/rows of terraces or else the Council will lose the money to another Authority, which is prepared to demolish housing. From what has been said by Councillors and Officers in the LAs, it looks very much as if people will be powerless and have no effective voice to determine the final decision/outcome.

  2.12  In my view, there has been a cover up by the ODPM, Elevate and the Councils on the matter of compulsory demolition as the first essential component of ADFs. Previously, when I asked all three bodies about this matter, I was categorically told that there was no Government Guidance, which indicated that there would have to be demolition as a condition of receiving HMR funding.

  2.13  One of the justifications for demolition and building new houses was that it would help inflate the value of the housing market, which the planners claim had virtually collapsed ("failed") for terraced housing, with low or no demand in parts of East Lancashire.

  2.14  Such a destructive policy of demolition ignores some salient facts:

    —    If Councils displace and destroy sustainable communities, where will the poor former residents live? They would not be able to afford to live in the up-market and gentrified new housing, which would replace the old housing. The HMR Programme is supposed to be built on the Government Principles of what makes a "Sustainable Community". (ODPM2003.)

    —    The majority of terraced properties built before 1919 are of a sound construction, a better quality and will last longer than some new housing built recently.

    —    It costs more to build new houses than to renovate existing ones.

    —    House prices are rising of their own accord [ie 40% average rise in Nelson; 50% in Burnley; 44% in Pendle]—there is also a demand for terraced housing.

    —    Terraced properties offer realistic choice—affordable housing, particularly for first time buyers, in predominately low wage economy areas while prices nationwide are going through the roof.

  2.15  This is set against the national backcloth on demand and spiraling house prices:

    —    Prices have more than doubled in five years thanks to falling interest rates and rising employment.

    —    The average house price in Britain is now just over £145,000—which means that prices are rising at more than £100 a day.

    —    The number of first-time buyers entering the market is at a 20 year low.

  2.16  The Colne ADF only based its figures on terraced house prices up to the end of 2002. A search of the Land Registry website for 2003-04 would show an appreciable increase in demand and prices of terraced properties in the ADF areas, like Colne. When I and others questioned their assumption on "the Housing Market failure in East Lancashire" at the Elevate Board meeting, in Accrington, on 1 March 2004, they admitted that there had been an increase in house values but the policy on demolition, clearance and land acquisition was not changed. It is, in my view, a scandal and should be exposed.

David Penney

East Lancashire Voluntary and Community [ELVAC] Representative on the "Shadow" Board of ELEVATE, East Lancashire HMR Pathfinder

10 May 2004


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 8 February 2005