Supplementary memorandum by David R J
Penney (EMP 28(c))
DEMOLITION
(a) The First Priority in East Lancashire
3.1 I agree with the reasoned arguments
by residents against the demolition of 34 homes in Bright Street
Colne, Pendle. The similar objections to demolition have been
made by residents in Brierfield. Likewise, residents in Nelson
are only being offered different degrees of demolition, particularly
in Whitefield, with options for improving the local area (ranging
from Minimum-Moderate-Major-Maximum Change) in the Consultation
on the Area Development Framework.
3.2 One disillusioned resident in Bright
Street made the false claim that he would receive £70,000
for his house, if it was demolished. Under the Council's current
Compulsory Purchase Orders Compensation package, residents could
receive around half that amount, £35,000, and, if they are
lucky up to £40,000. Where would a resident be able to purchase
a comparable property with that amount of compensation in the
locality? Will the Council be able to double what they can offer
now and foot the bill out of Elevate monies or will former house
owners be forced to accept social rented accommodation?
3.3 So, whether you live in Brierfield,
Colne or Colne, residents are expected to accept that some terraced
streets will be subject to demolition, clearance and land acquisition.
Why does the Council persist in such a policy, when it is clear
that the majority of the residents would prefer renovation to
demolition? Colne Area Committee has accepted the demolition proposal
for Bright Street with Pendle Executive making the final decision.
3.4 There is a two year Contract [2004-06]
between East Lancashire's Five Local Councils/Elevate and the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. They have signed up to a
legally binding agreement, in which certain outputs are mandatory
(ie a certain number of houses must be demolished within a specific
timescale). If a Council fails to achieve these targets, they
will lose money to other Councils or other areas, which are keeping
to their targets. In the first year, 2004-05, Pendle has agreed
to spend 40% of its budget from Elevate on demolition, while Burnley
tops the list with 70%.
3.5 It is difficult to see how Pendle can
achieve this mandatory output by 31 March 2005. The East Lancashire
Voluntary and Community Sector Forum [ELVAC] has asked Elevate
and the Councils to renegotiate their contract with the ODPM in
the light of increasing house prices [up 44% in Pendle, as at
30 June 2004] and demand for terraced properties. Those representing
the views of residents and community groups would question the
central premise of the Housing Market Restructuring Programme:
the need to knock houses down and build new ones in order to restore
confidence in the collapsing housing market. The Market has not
failed—it's booming; Government Housing Policy has failed.
People (in the form of anti-social tenants and absentee landlords,
as well as speculators, some of whom are leaving properties empty
in the hope of making a "fast buck"), not property,
are the problem.
3.6 Sadly, it would seem that the Government
is not prepared to reconsider the two year contract and change
the allocation of resources from demolition to renovation or allow
flexibility to carry monies over from one financial year to another.
(b) The True Human and Economic Cost
3.7 Pendle MP, Gordon Prentice, in supporting
Elevate's Programme, conveniently fails to mention that a significant
amount of almost £13 million has to be spent in Pendle, over
the next two years, on the demolition of streets in Briefield
and Colne, and, later in Nelson.
3.8 The MP should be honest and open about
the implication of the dreaded "D" word. Demolition
will mean the destruction and dispersal of communities, which
contradicts the Government's policy and principles of building
"Sustainable Communities". The Deputy Prime Minister,
John Prescott, declared in November 2003: "In the past, regeneration
has often meant wholesale demolition. But demolition is not an
essential part of regeneration . . . of terraced housing".
There is a conflict between that Government policy statement and
what is now proposed under the Housing Market Restructuring Pathfinders.
Sustainable Communities and HMR policies are an oxymoron—a
contradiction in terms!
3.9 Central to the Pathfinder policy is
the theory of "market failure"—how perverse! Even,
the Deputy Prime Minister's representative on Elevate, the Government
Policy Adviser, Market Renewal Team, Sustainable Communities Delivery
Team, has admitted publicly that the theory of knocking down houses
to bolster the market "is not yet proven".
3.10 This policy is social and economic
madness, particularly as the value of and demand for terraced
properties has risen dramatically. Because of the rise in value
of and demand for terraced properties, Pendle Borough Council
has been forced to agree a large increase in the Compulsory Purchase
Order package.
3.11 The increase will go up from £35,000-£40,000
to £55,000-£60,000—up to an extra £20,000
for each property to cover compensation, value of existing property,
legal and relocation costs. The reason for this increase is the
rising prices and demand for terraced properties so that evicted
owners can purchase another similar terraced property elsewhere
in Pendle. What a waste of public money when we were told that
the main purpose of the Housing Market Restructuring demolition
programme was the failure of the housing market in this sector!
3.12 We should remember that this maximum
£60,000 only includes the acquisition of one property with
vacant possession. When you add the cost of actual demolition,
land clearance and the building of a new house to replace the
old one, we are talking about at least £100,000 per house
for the whole process. No wonder house prices will continue to
rise in Pendle! Take a complete street with 48 houses [owned,
rented or empty] to be demolished and rebuilt, you could have
a final bill of between £2½ and £3 million.
3.13 Would not taxpayers' money be far better
spent on the renovation, rather than the demolition and reconstruction,
of housing for the people at affordable prices?
3.14 Pendle Borough Council, in the form
of the Leader and the Chief Executive, signed up to a legally
binding contract to demolish a certain quota of houses in return
for cash. It is duplicitous for PBC to now try and blame Elevate
for what the five Local Authorities in East Lancashire have already
agreed to over the next two years—47% of the budget on a
land acquisition, demolition and clearance programme. The rules
of the Elevate Partnership make clear that "overall responsibility
for the delivery of the programme ultimately rests with the five
Local Authorities supported by Elevate".
We are in danger of repeating the same disastrous
mistakes of the 1960s when urban renewal equalled clearance. So,
some of us have a tremendous battle to save our streets and homes,
over the next 15 years of the East Lancashire Pathfinder.
3.15 If the MP, the Council and Elevate
are not for us, we have three options:
(i) Accept, after predetermined consultation,
the loss of our homes with some former owners forced into rented
accommodation in the private or social sector.
(ii) Refuse to take the "blood money",
cash for demolition, and go to appeal.
(iii) Challenge the Government directly to
change its policy and funds from demolition to renovation—genuine
regeneration.
(c) No Place for Renovation or Refurbishment
3.16 Elevate has reallocated funds from
Colne to other projects elsewhere in East Lancashire because of
rising house prices in Colne, Pendle. So, renovation/refurbishment
projects in Colne have been stopped for the foreseeable future.
3.17 It is clear that the central role of
the Elevate Housing Market Restructuring Pathfinder is to tackle
low demand and value of terraced homes and use demolition/new
build, as the main tool to push up the need for and price of properties.
Elevate has made it clear that is not interested in putting money
into Refurbishments—renovation projects in Colne. Does this
policy extend right across East Lancashire? With a 47% average
increase in value and resulting demand of properties in Pendle,
since 1996, and the continuing rise, particularly in Colne, there
is no need to knock any houses down. The Halifax figures for the
last quarter of 2004 show that the North West house prices and
demand have grown faster than any other region in mainland Britain.
3.18 In the light of such escalating demand,
Pendle Borough Council should rescind its decision to demolish
Bright Street in Colne. It should withdraw its intended Compulsory
Purchase Orders and not waste taxpayers' money on an expensive
white elephant. In any case, the Council will probably fail to
use the money by 31 March 2005. This was the originally agreed
mandatory output/target date in the contract for acquiring all
the houses in Bright Street for demolition and land clearance.
3.19 The Council should instead use its
energies to campaign for a change in Elevate HMR Policies. New
policies should concentrate on genuine renovation and regeneration,
which residents asked for during the consultation for the Area
Development Framework in Colne. In the first round of monies for
the two year period of 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2006, Pendle Borough
Council is committed to establishing a Neighbourhood Management
Team and Master-planning in the Colne Area Development Framework.
If there are to be no further projects in Colne, this begs the
question: what will there to manage and master-plan?
3.20 If Whitefield Ward, Nelson, can achieve
minimal demolition and major renovation projects with the promise
of funding, through its Enquiry-By-Design process, why cannot
other Area Development Framework Wards in Nelson, Brierfield and
Colne be able to do the same?
3.21 Elevate, with pressure from the Councils
in East Lancashire, should change its priorities and take note
of guidance from the Deputy Prime Minister, whose Department,
the ODPM, has responsibility for building Sustainable Communities
through the HMR Pathfinders. He said: "I believe passionately
in the value of our heritage and the need to preserve old buildings"
(John Prescott, November 2003).
David R J Penney
Former East Lancashire Voluntary and Community [ELVAC]
Representative on Elevate "Shadow" Board, East Lancashire
HMR Pathfinder
ELVAC Member of the East Lancashire Housing Forum
14 January 2005
| 
