Memorandum by The Ancient Monuments Society
(EMP 40)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We welcome this Inquiry and the opportunity
to comment on anomalies thrown up by the implications of the "Pathfinder"
programme as being put into practice.
The main concerns addressed in the responses
are:
— coming to terms with the massive
scope and scale of the proposals;
— the lack of research and preparation
leading up to the implementation of the "Pathfinder"
project;
— questioning the validity of the assumptions
behind "Pathfinder";
— identifying some possible resources
that may have been have been overlooked;
— the failure by local authorities
to deal with "Pathfinder" in depth;
— questioning the powers that may be
available to deal with the developing situation;
— the overriding emphasis on demolition
and lack of proposals for sensitive refurbishment;
— the lack of administrative and practical
skills within the local authorities;
— the confusion about strategies and
in presenting them to the general public; and
— the concern that the "Pathfinder"
project is becoming a vehicle for more new house building by the
private sector.
Although there are many physical, administrative
and social matters to address, we regret that the impact of the
proposals on the historic environment and sensitive refurbishment
of historic properties falling within "Pathfinder" areas
has never been addressed, including being omitted from the list
of issues for this Inquiry.
We would request that this is given special
consideration in any future developments.
It appears that "Pathfinder" as ideally
envisaged will be extremely difficult to implement. It is taking
on board too many factors in the environment and community life
that have developed for complex reasons over many decades, and
expecting to artificially recreate them in a very short period
of time. There has been no opportunity to assess the natural evolution
of these factors, issues of increasing costs or sustainability,
There is a fear that only some sections of the project will ever
happen, and that unfinished schemes will further blight our towns
and cities for years to come.
Above all, we must ask if "Pathfinder"
is aiming to "renew the housing market"—a cold
and abstract concept—or provide people with homes in vibrant,
living communities with the stability of tradition and history
at their heart.
(a) The scope and scale of the initiatives
proposed and underway in the Government's Housing Market Renewal
Pathfinder areas and other areas with problems of empty homes
a.1 The sheer scale of this exercise, and
its impact on both the physical environment and the life of our
towns and cities, is difficult to comprehend. It may have started
as an attempt to answer the problem of empty houses, but is developing
into one of the largest clearance schemes ever seen in this country,
and raising a host of planning and social problems.
a.2 As the "Pathfinder" remit
is aimed at holistic reconstruction of environments and communities,
its potential scope is enormous. To be fully inclusive, it would
need to take on board every aspect of the physical and social
growth of the areas concerned, analysing not only their internal
workings but the way they have grown into and relate to their
towns and cities as a whole.
a.3 No indication of the necessary scope
has been made generally available. There has therefore been no
opportunity to draw attention to the matter of historic buildings
or townscapes that, by their presence in older quarters of towns
and cities, are most likely to be caught up in "Pathfinder"
areas.
a.4 This is a massively ambitious programme.
It is right to question just how far it is likely to be deliverable,
and if there is the mechanism to deal with it and the problems
coming up in its wake.
(b) The commitment and contribution
of all Government departments and other agencies to tackling the
underlying causes of empty homes
b.1 It must be noted that there is an important
difference between "empty homes" and "abandoned
houses." These situations need addressing differently by
the various agencies concerned, but there is no evidence that
this is being done at any government level. The full understanding
of the implications of "Pathfinder" should have been
fully explored before there was any commitment to any part of
the programme.
b.2 Genuinely abandoned houses are usually
found in groups with an easily identifiable common cause, often
structural, with demolition as the only option. Problems with
empty homes that are scattered amongst other inhabited and well
maintained properties are much more complex, and in the light
of the way the "Pathfinder" programme is being implemented,
it does not seem as if the causes for this are being fully investigated
or discussed with owners or local residents. If they were, it
would become clear that many properties are still in good hands,
and empty for a variety of reasons other than being unwanted or
unfit. There is no commitment in the "Pathfinder" programme
to helping or understanding the needs of individual owners.
b.3 In many cases, vacancies have arisen
where problems are outside the owners' control. These are often
social and environmental causes rather than problems with the
buildings themselves, where local authorities, highway authorities,
the police and social services could make a genuine commitment
to both helping individual owners and improving the whole area,
the life of the community and the potential of the properties.
b.4 On current evidence, this is not happening.
Local authorities are seeing the "Pathfinder" programme
simply as a mechanism for wholesale clearance, their only commitment
being to meeting the criteria that qualifies them for the grants.
It does not appear that they, or other Government departments,
are committed to seeking answers, other than demolition, to tackle
the problems.
b.5 There are cases, that of Darwen's Redearth
road area in particular, where local authorities are actually
creating empty houses by declaring them unfit (by a process subject
to severe criticism) and expecting residents, many of them long-standing
owners, to move. It is significant that the commitment to find
them alternative homes without financial or social upheaval is
noticeably lacking.
(c) The availability of resources outside
"Pathfinder" areas and the development of strategies
to deal with weak housing markets
c.1 It is pertinent to ask, in the light
of greatly improved house prices across the board, if the "weak
housing market" that "Pathfinder" was set up to
address does actually still exist. It appears that information
on which the 2002 report was based is now outdated and irrelevant.
"Elevate", East Lancashire's "Pathfinder"
delivery body, has (after much public pressure) pulled out of
their proposals in Colne as the housing market there has now stabilised.
c.2 The interest created by television programmes
in the character value of original features and individual homes
is fuelling the purchase and refurbishment of older properties.
c.3 This points to the value, both financially
and practically, of individual buyers as a key resource in renovation.
Although there will be occasions when major funds for block refurbishment
will be necessary, the total input from individuals would count
significantly if taken into in the overall reckoning.
c.4 In areas of historic importance, local
Building Preservation Trusts are capable of carrying out sympathetic
repairs and working on a rolling programme of refurbishment by
profit re-cycling. This is a much under-valued and underused resource.
c.5 The evolution of strategies to remove
environmental blight and restore confidence in an area's future
would attract much more investment than wholesale clearance and
displacement of communities.
(d) The dissemination of good practice,
innovation and co-ordinated interventions within and outside "Pathfinder"
areas
d.1 Poor handling of the "Pathfinder"
programme so far by several local authorities (including those
covering Darwen, Nelson, Liverpool, Goole and Stoke ) has already
weakened its credibility. Evidence of good practice is thin on
the ground.
d.2 "Pathfinder" is so complex
and multi-faceted that it would be a formidable task for anyone,
or any one organisation, to co-ordinate. The full picture has
certainly not been communicated through to the general public,
who associate it in practice with a government directive on acquisition
and demolition of existing homes rather than solving the problem
of empty ones. Refurbishment of certain fortunate properties,
whose reason for selection is not explained, is seen as a placebo
rather than part of an integrated scheme.
d.3 It is becoming clear that local authorities
were not made fully aware of the holistic ideals behind "Pathfinder"
before being rushed into complying with deadlines for bids. Even
if they had been, the tight time scales involved would not have
allowed for co-ordinated or innovative approaches.
d.4 We are told ("Road to Renewal"
quoted by "BURA", New Year Bulletin, 2005) that individual
local authorities were left to devise their own approaches to
"Pathfinder" initiatives. Consequently, there is a serious
need for guidance and co-ordination in good practice to prevent
discrepancies, and feelings of injustice, between neighbouring
towns in delivery of the programme.
d.5 Co-ordination and guidance is also needed
for members of the public in their search for grounds to complain
against grievances, and find evidence of good practice which they
can use in their own causes.
d.6 There is a serious need to slow the
whole process down until good guide lines have been established.
(e) Whether Councils have sufficient
powers to tackle the problem of empty homes in their areas
e.1 Local authorities are currently working
with a plethora of new legislation. From a layman's angle, much
of this seems wide open to interpretation depending on specific
circumstances. It will not be until authorities are faced with
implications arising out of "Pathfinder" that we will
know if sufficient powers can be found for the individual programmes
as they develop in each area. This will stretch the resources
of some small authorities to the limit.
e.2 When powers regarding empty homes do
exist, they are usually punitive rather than helpful. There is
a need to re-address this situation.
e.3 Unless Councils work in conjunction
with the highway authorities, the police and other service providers,
they will not have the powers to deliver the sustainable package
required for the success of "Pathfinder" or any other
refurbishment scheme.
(f) The priority given to the demolition
of homes and the consideration given to effective methods of refurbishment
f.1 "Demolition of homes" is a
matter of top priority for those affected. The fear of disruption
in all aspects of their lives is very real. Even to those not
directly affected, the threat to the familiar and historic townscape,
and its workings, are of serious concern.
f.2 The priority given to demolition by
local councils seeking to justify grants is out of all context
to the needs and beliefs of the local communities.
f.3 There is confusion even within the programme
itself. In East Lancashire, leaders of "Elevate" have
said in public that there can be no refurbishment without demolition,
and that the proportion of demolition is up to the local authorities
themselves. No actual percentage has ever been defined, and it
is impossible to determine whether it is per ward, per local authority
or across the whole region. A typical quote from local authorities
is "we are not going to demolish any houses here because
they are getting rid of so many in Liverpool that that will make
up the percentage." Yet it appears that every authority has
earmarked some houses for clearance under the impression that
it is mandatory.
f.4 Information directly from ODPM is, conflictingly,
that demolition is NOT part of the criteria for obtaining funds.
These uncertainties are pushing the issue of refurbishment into
a very poor second place.
f.5 Effective mechanism for refurbishment
of houses is long overdue. Schemes in the 1980s were undertaken
at a time when there was no "best value" criteria and
local authorities accepted the cheapest estimates on block refurbishment.
This led to little more than "patch and mend", resulting
in shoddy workmanship and disillusionment in the design and quality
of the work, giving refurbishment a bad name.
f.6 It is highly significant that "CABE"
has set up an office in North East Lancashire on the back of the
"Pathfinder" programme. This alone is acknowledgement
of past failure. CABE, however, is seeking to "educate"
local people in "design" of new and refurbished houses,
when the general public believes that it is within the local authorities
that training is most needed.
f.7 Unfortunately also, CABE seems to be
interpreting "refurbishment" as "innovation"
and "raising aspirations", running the risk of making
upgrading appear expensively unattainable and unpopular. Radical
change may be advantageous for saving some housing stock, but
is by no means to everyone's taste or compatible with traditional
surroundings.
f.8 As yet there is no guidance from CABE,
as expected, in design and best practice in dealing with Conservation
Areas and historic building stock.
(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 It is becoming clear from the handling
of the "Pathfinder" programme that weaknesses are in
our local authorities rather than in housing markets. There seems
to be very little existing skill or training amongst local authority
staff faced with the administration and promotion of projects
of this kind.
g.2 "Pathfinder" is throwing up
new challenges for which there is no precedent and administrators
are learning, often by mistakes, as they go along. This highlights
the need for disseminating good practice.
g.3 Training in public relations is essential
for all council staff and elected members likely to come face
to face with residents on sensitive issues regarding their homes.
Handling of matters in Nelson and Darwen has left much to be desired.
g.4 Many employees in local authorities
see their work only in terms of facts and figures and meeting
deadlines, without relevance to the human element behind them.
In a small local authority, a united and sensitive approach, led
by a well-informed and sympathetic individual may be possible;
in a large authority with multiple links in the administrative
chain, important matters can—and do—easily slip through
the net. This is evidenced by Blackburn with Darwen's report to
Council on 16 September 2004 which stated that "most people
were in favour of clearance" (of the Redearth Road area)
when the many letters attached to the same report proved exactly
the opposite.
g.5 Many local authorities in the north
do not have Conservation Officers or planning staff with specialist
training in the history of architecture or urban development,
and will therefore not be alerted to the importance of any significant
properties that may be included in sweeping programmes. Although
the Deputy Prime Minister has said that historic properties are
important and must be respected, no definition of "historic"
has been forthcoming. Nor are there many building or surveying
staff with the experience to understand construction of older
properties. There is still a great deal of research to be done
in our older, inner urban areas.
(h) How housing market renewal is addressed
in other strategies including local and regional plans and other
regeneration programmes
h.1 There is considerable variation in the
status of other strategies. Regional Planning guidance is continuously
under review, Structure plans (eg Lancashire's) are still "emerging"
and local authorities are just coming to terms with their Local
Development Plans under directives which came into force in October.
Into this uncertain framework, "Pathfinder" has been
"parachuted" with its package of grants depending on
"Area Development Frameworks" as insets to the LDPs.
The deadlines for complying with "Pathfinder" requirements
have added a further dimension of confusion and created shifting
priorities for some Councils.
h.2 The large amount of money available
through "Pathfinder" and its back-up sources such as
English Partnerships has meant that many previous local strategies
have been linked into it, now subjecting them to "Pathfinder"
directives as interpreted by the individual authorities.
h.3 Public involvement in all of these strategies—and
other local matters—has become so intense that most people,
and many elected Council members, have lost track of developments
due to over-consultation and use of jargon. To most ordinary people,
there is no strategy—just endless discussion overridden
by, as always, their local authority's desire to acquire any grant
money as it becomes available.
h.4 One common fault in housing market renewal
strategies at all levels is that they are worded in terms of bias
against older houses, yet these form the bulk of our listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas, as well as the wider historic fabric of
our towns and cities currently being recognised (as by the Deputy
Prime Minister) and appraised by English Heritage. It is essential
to include this acknowledgement, in all regeneration programmes,
rather than refer generally to "pre 1919 terraced houses"
as targets for mass "renewal".
h.5 The fact remains that the housing market,
no matter what strategies may be wished upon it by plans at any
level, is a very fluid thing, and will be driven by people and
their own interpretations of their purchasing power rather than
being directed from any outside source.
(i) How Pathfinders are seeking to
involve the private sector in their long-term planning and programmes
i.1 "Pathfinders" do not have
to "seek to involve the private sector". It is has been
there from the start and has had a great impact on the way things
have developed at local authority and intermediate level.
i.2 The private sector is currently restricted
by the "moratoria" on new house building in many parts
of the north, and limited to brownfield sites rather than desirable
greenfield areas. Brownfield sites being often difficult to develop,
especially after contamination by industry, the house builders
are seeking to use existing housing sites—as stated by the
representative of Bolton Council at the Examination in Public
of the North West Regional Planning Guidance before "Pathfinder"
was introduced—"My brownfield sites are still built
on."
i.3 With the important exception of developers
like Urban Splash which has taken increased interest in rehabilitation
in Pathfinder Areas (and with much greater publicity in central
Liverpool and Manchester) it is clear that the private sector
has neither the interest nor the skills required for refurbishment
and is more concerned with new-build on cleared sites for its
own immediate future than any long term planning.
i.4 There is no evidence that most of the
major players in the private sector have anything innovative to
offer in the way of replacing existing housing stock, nor that
what replacement they currently have to offer will be sustainable.
| 
