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.
| Outcomes | 2004-05
| 2005-06 | Total
|
| Homes wholly demolished | 223
| 567 | 790 |
| Homes Acquired: | 360 | 486
| 846 |
| New homes constructed and occupied | 58
| 73 | 131 |
| Homes refurbished to Decent Homes standard |
174 | 340 | 514
|
| Homes refurbished to sub-decent Homes standard
| 120 | 561 | 681
|
| Number of homes subject to additional management measures designed to overcome low demand
| 33,674 | 39,530 | n/a
|
| Number of homes subject to non-housing works on land and built environment
| 19,700 | 23,600 | n/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
|
