Memorandum by Alan Wilson, Chairman, Goole
Action Group (EMP 31)
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1. "Advance Goole" which is occurring
in my town, is from what I can gather, not part of the Pathfinder
Scheme, but is a related scheme, in that it is drawing Government
money in exchange for the demolition of Phoenix Street and Richard
Cooper Street. The prime exercise is demolition not renovation
and regeneration. As far as I'm aware ERYC have never discussed
in any sort of detail renovation of the homes in the targeted
streets.
2. 117 houses that are of sound appearance
and quality have been earmarked for demolition despite the majority
of residents and landlords being against the process. No one would
deny that regeneration in an area ignored by the County Council
for so long would be welcomed, but the loss of housing in a town
already short of quality, low cost housing will be devastating.
This exercise will only serve to increase the gap from renting
to first time purchase.
3. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC)
claim to have carried out extensive consultation, but this process
has been shown to be flawed, with tenants being offered cash incentives
to vote for the demolition of homes that they don't own, landlords
being omitted from the mailing list, questionnaire scores being
combined to ensure that they create a majority vote.
4. A housing stock survey that is flawed
from its first page to its missing appendices; A council that
refuses to comment on why they want to demolish the target streets,
(no evidence in the public domain to point to this conclusion);
A council that refuses to tell the people what it is going to
build in place of our homes and community; A council that refuses
to say where it is going to re-house the 100 families currently
in occupation.
5. The terms used in Council sponsored reports
to categorise streets seem to be manipulated to suit the council's
own requirements and offer no meaningful assessment of the state
of that street, eg in the Housing Stock Survey carried out by
Michael Dyson Ltd. the term "Non Sustainable" is used
to denote those streets identified as demolition only. "Fragile"
is used to denote those streets on the periphery of demolition.
Within these definitions it refers to empty properties, areas
of disrepair, and crime levels, etc. But nowhere does it attempt
to distinguish between large streets and small streets. eg a street
with 100 homes is more likely to have more empty houses than a
street with 15, and therefore, as has happened in Goole, more
likely to be classified as Fragile.
Q. A + B.
1. The majority of the identifiers used
in the classification of streets for renewal are in the main ambiguous
and unsound. Eg The term "empty homes" is too glib a
description to attach to a home that is unoccupied for a variety
of reasons. Eg the owner could have died; the house might be being
renovated. The number of homes for sale may represent a number
of people jumping on the bandwagon, knowing that they have a very
saleable asset, cashing in their equity and moving up the property
ladder. The measure to mean anything should have some quantification
of time in terms of its' length of vacancy.
2. It should certainly not be used as a
negative measure to denigrate an area, neither should sale boards
attached to homes, or the concept of "a growing presence
of the private rented sector" be taken as an indication that
a street is in decline. ERYC are off-loading their council houses,
so there is a growth in the private sector to fill the void created
by the absence of the council properties. Again in todays job
market when people move freely across the country with their work—renting
property provides a viable housing option.
3. "Fragile" is used to denote
streets "often characterised by the presence of one or two
empty properties and a growing presence of the private rented
sector. The amount of disrepair and housing failing the decent
homes standard is above average for the study area. Reported crime
rates may also be above average for the area."
4. "Non-sustainable" is what ERYC
used to identify streets for demolition "with a significant
proportion of empty or abandoned dwellings or where owner-occupiers
are in a minority. The streets have a poor reputation in the town
and experience well above average incidents of reported crime".
5. The way these streets are assessed is
at one specific moment in time. ie at that time when the person
walks past with their clipboard. It does not take into account
that that street may be the "edge of the ripple" and
the houses are boarded up because they are being renovated. It
does not make commercial sense in this day and age to abandon
properties. A person could walk down many streets in say London,
Leeds, Birmingham, where the tenure is virtually 100%, does that
make that street liable for demolition?
6. The growing presence of "the private
rented sector"—over what period have they monitored
it? What effect does the Government's "Buy to Let" scheme
have on an area that is "at the edge of the ripple".
". . . above average incidents of reported crime" can
mean anything. It fails to distinguish what sort of crime, whether
the crime is committed by persons living in the street, or in
fact, is there is a distinct lack of policing on that street?
Q. C.
1. From what I understand, the Pathfinder
policies and the development of strategies to deal with weak housing
markets were developed by Professor Leather in 1991, and updated
in 1999. As everyone knows the housing market has done a complete
about turn over this period, and most certainly property prices
have seen an unprecedented rise. Such that, should an area of
cheap housing be identified there will be no shortage of buyers
queuing to buy.
Q. D.
2. I believe that if you intend to deprive
homeowners and tenants of their homes, landlords of their livelihoods,
then the purchasing body must be scrupulously clean and open.
My experience of ERYC is that they totally fail to meet this criteria.
Their consultation process was flawed; their decision to demolish
is based on very unsound data; they refuse to answer very pertinent
questions like—what are you going to build in place of the
houses you intend to demolish, Where are you going to re-house
100 families in a town desperately short of housing stock—and
now they are denying access to data that would help the Action
Group to fight a legitimate campaign to save their homes and community.
3. ERYC have collected reams of paper, but
there is no apparent documented evidence (in the public domain)
to prove that the target streets should be demolished.
4. One example of the flawed consultation
and unsound data was the questionnaire that was (allegedly) sent
out to all adults in the two target streets. It included details
of compensation payments if occupants voted YES to demolition,
but did not quantify what, if anything, was on offer for a NO
vote. It was sent to tenants, homeowners and to some landlords.
This created the possibility of two tenants in one house who fancy
a £3,400+ windfall and an all expenses paid re-housing, voting
in favour of demolition, when the landlord who has invested in
the house is out voted 2:1, ergo demolition. It also failed to
take into account the votes of long term residents, allowing their
vote to be cancelled out on 1 for 1 basis by a short term tenant.
There is no doubt that the questionnaire process was engineered
to obtain a YES vote.
5. ERYC combined two parts of Q4 to obtain
their so called majority of 50.4% in favour of demolition. This
in fact was made up of 36% in favour + 14.4% "broadly in
favour but want more information", (which I believe is a
"don't know" and should not have been included.) Despite
many requests ERYC have refused to break down their questionnaire
response "in numbers by tenure", so that it is clear
where the responses came from. Recently they have provided this
information by percentage, but unless the actual numbers are known,
the figures is worthless. If they can provide percentages, they
should provide the actual numbers. The questionnaire was a vote
for the compensation package, and not because residents thought
their homes were unfit. If the questionnaire had been sent out
without details of the financial package, then I believe the results
obtained would have been different.
6. I have contacted a significant number
of landlords with properties on these streets, who with the odd
exception are totally against demolition, and most of which had
not been contacted!!
7. Given that the results of this questionnaire
are supposed to represent one of ERYC's main reasons for demolition,
they have refused to submit the results to independent scrutiny.
8. ERYC received back 125 completed questionnaires,
which represents approximately 50% of the residents + landlords.
Only 36% of that 50% voted to accept the compensation package
= 18%!! This consultation measure failed to reflect accurately
the views of the majority of the property owners in these two
street; namely NO to demolition.
9. The production of the "Advance Goole
Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment Report[19]"
should according to the guidelines laid down by the ODPM include
residents and stakeholders in the decision making process. When
questioned why they hadn't included residents and stakeholders,
their answer was they couldn't find any!!!. I have the letter
containing this statement on file, should it be required.
10. The Advance Goole Neighbourhood Renewal
Assessment Report contains many anomalies which suggest that the
report was produced to support the pre-determined council decision
of demolition. I can elaborate further if required.
11. Because of the fact that people might
lose their homes, their communities, their friends, I believe
that every Council considering this process should research the
residents, the area, the history, and should certainly carry out
detailed analysis of the housing needs of the area prior to commencement.
No council should be allowed to consider demolition, until every
other avenue of renewal and regeneration has been exhaustively
explored. In our case it certainly seems that no other option
other than demolition was explored meaningfully.
12. I believe that good practise should
extend to honest communication with all people enquiring about
the potential loss of their homes and communities. When you have
a Deputy Leader of the Council, assuring a concerned resident
that "the decision making process followed will be transparent
and require the majority decision of the Full Council to implement,
whatever those proposals may be", and then the decision to
Demolish is taken in a ruling party dominated Cabinet meeting
which refuses to accept information other than from its' own officers,
this surely is against the spirit of Pathfinder. (See Appendix
1—Letter from Jonathan Owen)
Q. E.
1. There is enough enforcement power already
with the Council. I would like to see the adoption of a legal
set of standards drawn up by the residents of the street or area,
that is enforceable by law. I believe that the residents and landlords
should be empowered to become responsible for their own properties,
and be responsible to the residents of that area. This I believe
would lead to greater ownership of the environment, by the people
actually living there, and would lead to an upward spiral in the
aspirations of residents. Thus creating better citizens, better
homes in stress free, crime free communities.
2. In most areas identified as suitable
for demolition, there is a strong thread of a community just waiting
to receive the right sort of encouragement and impetus to allow
it to grow.
Q. F.
1. My experience of Advance Goole is that
the emphasis has been solely on demolition (Option three—Strategic
Intervention—Advance Goole Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment
Report). Option two—Limited Intervention, was discontinued
because some sort of grant aid had apparently been tried in this
area a few years ago, and apparently not made much difference.
I think that says more about the poor quality of the scheme methodology
and bad management, than anything else. It's the equivalent of
saying I tried to ride a bike and didn't like it, so I'm never
going to use the train again! Ludicrous.
2. The time taken to explore publicly the
renewal and regeneration options, is, I believe a worthwhile public
relations exercise. If, after an exhaustive and inclusive exercise
such as this which should include all relevant agencies (eg English
Heritage, Council for British Archaeology), the council can openly
demonstrate that renewal is not the answer, it is more likely
to pursue a trouble free development path.
3. Most badly planned processes usually
end in high cost failure. They are badly planned because they
ignore the front end analysis and consultation. It only takes
one disenfranchised person to force an enquiry which in itself
costs the Council in time and legal fees. Councils should invest
heavily in the consultation process and be prepared to lower the
drawbridge and to discuss or re-evaluate their findings if someone
challenges their figures, and not adopt the siege mentality of
ERYC, who are now slowing down information requested, to a virtual
non-existent flow.
Q. G.
1. There are no weak housing markets in
the current climate. Just areas that have not been discovered.
The only skills required are to bring the appropriate publicity
and funding schemes to that area.
Q. H.
1. This can only be successfully addressed
by the involvement and ownership of the residents. What must be
paramount is the protection of homes and communities. A successful
community will have low levels of crime (reduced policing costs),
low stress levels (reduced strain on medical surfaces), higher
aspirations for children and adults (improved educational attainment,
less disruption, less reliance on support agencies), etc. DEMOLITION
must be the last resort—the cost to homes and communities
is far too great, and NOT THE FIRST, as it appears to be with
ERYC.
Q. I.
1. I repeat what I said in (h), DEMOLITION
must be the last resort and NOT THE FIRST. The involvement of
the private sector will invariably reverse the above statement.
They have to make a profit. There is more profit in building new
houses than renovating old homes.
In the light of the Halifax bulletin ("average
age of first time buyers rises to 34", 92% of new houses
built unaffordable to first time buyers, etc"), it seems
the height of madness in a town such as Goole which has a distinct
lack of first time housing, to remove 117 homes from the housing
stock. These homes are sound in structure, and offer great value
as the first rung on the housing ladder. The removal of these
homes will be a double edged sword to first-time buyers, not only
will demolition take these homes away, but increased demand on
a reduced housing stock will force the prices up of all the other
properties of this type. This will of course force more people
into housing association properties (perhaps this is the plan)
and subsequently delay the day when people will purchase their
own home.
The properties in Richard Cooper St and Phoenix
St are not unfit for habitation, and as properties in their own
right offer superb opportunities for first time purchasers to
begin the climb up the property ladder. New houses now being built
in Goole, and advertised as "affordable for the first time
purchaser" are on the market from £115,000 to £190,000—between
two and three times as much as the homes they plan to demolish!
19 Advance Goole Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment Report,
CSR Partnership Ltd, 593ai, November 2004. Submitted to East Riding
of Yorkshire Council. Back
| 
