Memorandum by Kathleen Fishwick (EMP 34)
I am responding in a personal capacity to the
issues raised in the Inquiry as I am very concerned about way
the "Pathfinder" initiative is being interpreted and
implemented. My information is drawn from the experiences of myself
and my contacts in our various organisations and the messages
that are coming through from all levels regarding the impact of
the "Pathfinder" programme as it begins to take effect.
(a) The scope and scale of the initiatives
proposed and under way in the Government's Housing Market Renewal
Pathfinder areas and other areas with problems of empty homes.
1.a There are many different reasons for
empty homes, and all of these need addressing by different means.
The scope and scale of the initiatives seem to have been left
to individual local authorities to decide, and it is doubtful
whether they have had the time or the available staff to do proper
surveys in the period allocated to them to draw up reports and
apply for grants under the "Pathfinder" scheme.
2.a This has lead in many cases to the launching
of sweeping clearance schemes which are causing great distress
and confusion amongst a large number of the population. The number
of inhabited houses—real homes—earmarked for clearance
under the proposed initiatives is far more than the number of
empty homes around in the first place.
3.a The enormous scale of this programme,
without a properly defined scoping exercise, is getting seriously
out of hand.
(b) The commitment and contribution
of all Government departments and other agencies to tackling the
underlying causes of empty homes.
1.b Due to the lack of a proper scoping
exercise, there is a complete failure to identify many of multiple
reasons for homes lying empty. Without recognition of a cause,
there can be no commitment to remedy it.
2.b Underlying causes can often be due to
the failure of local government itself, especially where maintenance
of the environment and control of social issues is concerned.
There does not seem to be any commitment on behalf of local authorities
or other agencies such as the police or social services to putting
these right.
3.b It is not being generally acknowledged
that "empty homes" are different from "abandoned
houses". Empty homes may have individual owners who intend
to use them. (It is ironic that in some country villages the proportion
of second homes regularly left empty—eg 15% in the Yorkshire
Dales— is greater than the proportion of empty homes being
quoted as comprising problem areas in towns.) Also, we hear of
shrewd property dealers who have been watching the progress of
"Pathfinder" through its early stages, buying houses
cheaply while the market was poor, and keeping them empty, looking
for possible compensation for demolition or a rise in value—more
likely both at the moment due to the recent market improvement.
As an underlying cause, of continued emptiness, this cannot be
ignored.
4.b Councils themselves can be responsible
for leaving homes empty and boarded up due to badly planned and
failed schemes. Nowhere is this more evident than in Nelson, where
no commitment was given to reversing the mess created by Pendle
Council's ill-advised compulsory purchase of houses in the Whitefield
area, even after their plans had been thrown out by two public
Inquiries, the findings of which were endorsed by the Deputy Prime
Minister himself. The "Pathfinder" programme, inheriting
this existing and very clear situation, has simply added further
complications rather than being able to come to terms with the
facts and help with the refurbishment and rehabilitation of the
now protected properties. It has taken an initiative by the Prince's
Foundation, in the form of an intensive "Enquiry by Design,"
to kick- start real progress in this area, including negotiations
on financial matters with "Pathfinder" through its East
Lancashire delivery body "Elevate."
5.b It would seem that there is little commitment
in government departments to understand what is really needed
in "Pathfinder" areas.
6.b In many ways, it is perhaps as well
that there is a shortage of commitment in actually implementing
the "Pathfinder" programme in its present flawed form.
(c) The availability of resources outside
the "Pathfinder" areas and the development of strategies
to deal with weak housing markets.
The housing market is by nature a very fluid
thing, and is characterised by rises and falls in price affecting
different types of houses at different times. It is driven by
individual tastes and personal finance, and cannot be meaningfully
quantified. Any imposition of strategies will only inhibit the
flexibility to devise resources for rejuvenating the market as
situations change, and encourage speculation in one sector which
in turn could reflect badly on another.
(d) The dissemination of good practice,
innovation and co-ordinated interventions within and outside the
"Pathfinder" areas.
d.1 At the moment, there is no evidence
of good practice that can be disseminated. No "Pathfinder"
area so far has stood out as a model practitioner of its aims,
in fact, exactly the opposite; it would be a far more useful exercise
to analyse the examples of bad practice, and hold them up as cautionary
tales for any other authorities going down the same track.
d.2 Nor has there as yet been anything to
show for innovation or co-ordinated interventions. In fact, neither
of these approaches have had prominence in any "Pathfinder"
programme to date, even if they exist, and have not caught the
imagination of local authorities or the general public.
(e) Whether Councils have sufficient
powers to tackle the problem of empty homes in their areas.
e.1 Whether Councils have the powers or
not is a specialist legal field; but they certainly do not have,
nor have they had for some time, enough staff, let alone enough
qualified staff, to fully come to terms with empty homes and the
administration that is needed to answer the problems.
e.2 If the "Pathfinder" schemes
get under way, even in the limited shape they are now in, they
will demand many more staff and staff time to run them in all
local authority departments.
e.3 Not all local councils run the services
necessary to deal with the environment, eg highways, and therefore
they alone do not have the powers to improve roads and streets
where this is necessary.
e.4 Many perfectly good houses are left
empty after long-standing owners move or die because of the deterioration
of unadopted streets or back alleys. As Councils do not have the
powers to repair these, maintenance is left to residents, who
have neither the skills nor money to co-ordinate their repair.
This shows up in any search that is done prior to purchase, and
many would-be owners are advised against taking on the responsibility,
especially in the present "compensation culture" climate.
Yet residents of these streets have to pay exactly the same Council
tax as those whose streets are Council maintained! Powers to correct
this state of affairs are urgently needed.
e.5 Worst of all, the Councils have no power
or mechanism to find homes for the people displaced by their clearance
plans. They will never be able to fully recompense everybody they
plan to move, and there is certain to be heartbreak and injustice
in many cases.
(f) The priority given to the demolition
of homes and the consideration given to effective methods of refurbishment.
f.1 At the moment, there does not seem to
be any other priority but demolition uppermost in people's minds.
The message is widespread that there must be, to quote Sheila
Tolley of East Lancs. "Elevate," speaking at the public
meeting in Nelson on 22 November 2004, "Swathes and swathes
of houses to come down in the North West." Statements such
as this are colouring the whole picture.
f.2 Local authorities drew up their initial
programmes under the impression that they would get no money for
refurbishment unless they included some demolition. Consequently,
they gave demolition priority so they would qualify for the grant
money, even before thorough research into the areas concerned
had been carried out.
f.3 Everything that comes to the attention
of local or regional environmental bodies is primarily concerned
with demolition and people in fear and despair at losing their
homes. Even if people do not know the name "Pathfinder"
they know that there is a government directive that is targeting
their property, their lives and their communities. Nobody comes
with enthusiasm about refurbishment; nobody comes for advice on
good design in the environment; the only thing people want to
do is save their homes. If their house is to be spared, they would
be thankful and possibly put up with any form of refurbishment
as the price to pay for security.
f.4 So far, there has been no indication
that people whose houses are to be refurbished have been given
any choice as to how it should be done. Houses in the Bacup-Stacksteads
area of Rossendale have been turned into sand-blasted, identically
detailed clones of each other in what looks like any other superficial
package deal handed out to residents of terraced houses. Although
some future innovative schemes are hoped for, these are on hold
until the dreaded decision is made about which houses are to survive
the threat of demolition.
(g) The availability of the necessary
skills and training to support staff promoting projects to tackle
the needs of areas with weak housing markets.
g.1 So far, "Pathfinder" projects
have fallen mainly into the hands of existing local authority
staff who have had no training whatsoever in what "Pathfinder"
is supposed to be all about or how to present it to the general
public.
g.2 It is probably understood fully by only
a handful of people at Town Hall level, and this includes the
elected members who are facing the public on the streets. Councillors
need to be fully advised of what "Pathfinder" means.
g.3 The "bedside manner" of some
local authority staff dealing with members of the public on sensitive
issues has been clumsy, to say the least. There is a serious need
for training not only in the ramifications of "Pathfinder"
but working with people adversely affected by the proposals.
(h) How housing market renewal is addressed
in other strategies including local and regional plans and other
regeneration programmes.
h.1 The government's wish to engage the
public in decision making is commendable, but the sheer amount
of consultation is becoming confusing. Participation in formation
of plans and strategies is fine if these are understandable, but
many of these are beyond the grasp of the man in the street and
many others not dealing with them on a professional level.
h.2 Housing market renewal is getting lost
in the middle of all this, and not enough weight given to it as
an essential part of people's lives that should be debated on
a separate level rather than as part of a confusing whole. People
do not pick up on evolving strategies—only the effect when
they hit them later in practice.
(i) How Pathfinders are seeking to
involve the private sector in their long-term planning programmes.
i.1 It is no secret that the Housebuilders'
Federation has had a significant presence at all debates and conferences
at Regional and Structure Plan level for many years. They are
and have been involved from the beginning. There is also no doubt
that their interest is in new house building rather than refurbishment.
How this can be reconciled with the aims of "Pathfinder"
remains worrying. Housebuilders are not generally renowned for
being innovative, community minded or concerned with sustainability.
i.2 It would be far better if "Pathfinder"
involved good local builders with traditional skills in refurbishment
work to undertake individual jobs. This could be expanded into
a programme of training for young people who could carry those
skills on to the future.
CONCLUSION
There is certainly a need to investigate and
remedy the problem of empty homes, simply because they were and
could be homes again. Nobody gives up a home lightly, nor should
they be expected to.
Some people's homes may be modest and in need
of repair, but this does not mean that they are unloved or unfit.
Intervention, to be truly sustainable and community
friendly, must be well researched and subtle, not as cold and
sweeping as "Pathfinder" is turning out to be.
There is no way that a community which has taken
decades to evolve can be replaced or replicated by strategies
or contrivance.
"Pathfinder" has got off on completely
the wrong foot and is sending out all the wrong messages. The
haste and arrogance of the planners behind it, who do not seem
to have learnt the lessons of the 1960s' "social engineering"
mistakes, is giving it a bad name.
The whole programme needs to slow down and re-assess
itself and its aims if it is to avoid grinding to an expensive
and incomplete halt, leaving half-finished schemes and the members
of the population who most need help, most sadly disillusioned.
It would be better to achieve a little, well,
than a lot badly.
| 
