Adam Wilkinson, Secretary of SAVE Britain's Heritage, came to Saltwell and Bensham today to see why the area had been given the dubious honour of pathfinder status.
Adam took a tour of the area escorted by Residents' Association Chairman Tony Bone and was astonished at what he saw. After taking photographs and been taken to the most run down part of the area Adam said that this was the least appropriate place to be given pathfinder status that he ever seen.
Tony Bone passed on the very latest news that in the worst streets that the council was going to demolish "immediately" offers of up to £115,000 had been given for property by council officials ignoring local independent valuations of £140,000. This would indicate the demolition of the first 50 properties would cost over £5,000,000 using the council's own valuations.
After being told that one reason to justify demolition was the lack of green space in the area it wasn't long before the seasoned SAVE campaigner noticed that the council map ended just a couple of feet before Saltwell Park - the winner of Britain's best park award in 2005.
As local campaigners we were a little embarrassed by the state of the area. There were no piles of rubbish, beer cans or signs of anti-social behaviour. We were concerned that SAVE might have thought we had set-up a visit to coincide with some kind of massive cleanup operation. We hadn't - this was just a random tour of the area.
It has always been the position of Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association that pathfinder status was inappropriate for the area. Now Britain's foremost heritage campaign organisation agrees. The battle to save Saltwell and Bensham for the buldozer seems all the more worthwhile after today's morale boosting visit.
Link: SAVE Britain's Heritage
Friday, May 26, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
Developers Dis-satisfied With Gateshead View
One resident of Saltwell and Bensham tackled his local councillor on why his street was going to face demolition. He was told this was for "social reasons". Pressed the councillor slightly varied his story when he explained that after the next street was demolished developers would have a view of some of the back lanes. It was explained that potential developers would not like a view of back lanes in so those houses would have to go too.
Of course for most house buyers in the area the backlanes are a convenient place to put out rubbish and for public services like gas and electricity to connect to houses.
It does beg the question of what view developers want in Gateshead. Perhaps developers would like the view of hundreds of wild beasts crossing the grasslands of sub-saharan Africa. Maybe they would prefer the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Of course the real answer is not about housing but maximising profit for the shareholders of these multi-national building companies. They care so little for the lives of the community in Gateshead that they need houses bulldozing for the sake of a better view.
Of course for most house buyers in the area the backlanes are a convenient place to put out rubbish and for public services like gas and electricity to connect to houses.
It does beg the question of what view developers want in Gateshead. Perhaps developers would like the view of hundreds of wild beasts crossing the grasslands of sub-saharan Africa. Maybe they would prefer the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Of course the real answer is not about housing but maximising profit for the shareholders of these multi-national building companies. They care so little for the lives of the community in Gateshead that they need houses bulldozing for the sake of a better view.
Gateshead Council Redefines Victorian Value
Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837 and died in 1901. Houses built in the era are normally referred to as Victorian. However if you are Gateshead Council wanting to push through controversial demolition proposals you end up arguing that some houses are more Victorian than others.
Questioning why certain streets are in the demolition programme when others have been excluded one councillor said that the consultants did not feel streets were Victorian enough. These are the same consultants who do driveby surveys that failed to work out which properties were flats and which were houses. In this particular case only houses with bay windows were considered Victorian enough to be kept.
For most of the area under threat of the bulldozer this answer would at least have a degree of consistency if it were not for the council's favourite street used as the example of area decline - Armstrong Street. Armstrong Street has lots of bay windows, most of which have been boarded up by the landlord rather than refurbished and rented out. So many windows are boarded up a visitor might think that local taxes had replaced by a window tax. Considering Gateshead Council's view that bay windows make a building typically Victorian it is surprising that the council's 35 person enforcement team hasn't taken the landlord to court.
Unfortunately for residents of the area the landlord is Gateshead Council.
Questioning why certain streets are in the demolition programme when others have been excluded one councillor said that the consultants did not feel streets were Victorian enough. These are the same consultants who do driveby surveys that failed to work out which properties were flats and which were houses. In this particular case only houses with bay windows were considered Victorian enough to be kept.
For most of the area under threat of the bulldozer this answer would at least have a degree of consistency if it were not for the council's favourite street used as the example of area decline - Armstrong Street. Armstrong Street has lots of bay windows, most of which have been boarded up by the landlord rather than refurbished and rented out. So many windows are boarded up a visitor might think that local taxes had replaced by a window tax. Considering Gateshead Council's view that bay windows make a building typically Victorian it is surprising that the council's 35 person enforcement team hasn't taken the landlord to court.
Unfortunately for residents of the area the landlord is Gateshead Council.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Housing: A Decisive Issue For Government
As the dust settles on the Local Elections the national media would like to think that the Labour Party lost votes because of John Prescott's trousers. In fact a much deeper underlying cause is housing.
The Government's laudable aim has been to reach a decent homes standard by 2010. It's strategy has been to remove social housing provision from local government and to revitalise the inner cities. However the question of affordable supply of housing remains a problem. private developers, in for the profit, want to build luxury flats and the new social housing surpliers do not see themselves as crusaders for social housing but rather partners in development projects that net profits.
In Barking the BNP used (untrue) stories of immigrant famlies receiving £35,000 to help them uy houses. In London, an area with eye watering house prices, Labour lost control of 18 authorities and the Conservatives gained 11. Anti-demolition campaigners split the vote in Liverpool. In Lambeth, where Labour bucked the trend, the Labour leader said that housing issues helped Labour win Lambeth. (See the link to Inside Housing for more detail).
Crucially the Labour Party has encouraged local councils to privatise their housing stock or hand it over to so-called "arms length" companies (ALMOs). This has had a dramatic effect on Labour support in the country according to the Defend Council Housing campaign.
Locally this leaves little option for the local council to effect supply and demand except through participation with the private sector. Unfortunately private sector developer want cleared land not occupied space. By using the government Pathfinder programme local authorities can hide the the process of acting as partner of a private developer under the disguise of revitalising inner cities.
Much of the commitment to Pathfinder was funded through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wanted to give John Prescott something to do and a big budget. The net result of the dimise of the Deputy Prime Minister's fortunes might well be a scaling back of Pathfinder funds.
Gateshead has already failed to get all the money it wanted in this year of Pathfinder. The large sums promised to revitalise areas depend on private developers pumping in money on the back of government money. Hence the less central government cash the less matching private cash and the less redevelopment. Money could go further if refurbishment rather than demolition was on the agenda.
This week Gateshead residents were told the demolition of 440 homes would be in two stages - underlining the slow trickle of money that the council have really secured rather than the big numbers they tend to quote from their most optimistic dreams. Stage 2 of demolition is still 2 years away in 2008. Residents will have to put their lives on hold for a further 2 years and 2 sets of local elections. If policy like this is repeated nationwide then housing might well become more than a local issue.
Link: Inside Housing
The Government's laudable aim has been to reach a decent homes standard by 2010. It's strategy has been to remove social housing provision from local government and to revitalise the inner cities. However the question of affordable supply of housing remains a problem. private developers, in for the profit, want to build luxury flats and the new social housing surpliers do not see themselves as crusaders for social housing but rather partners in development projects that net profits.
In Barking the BNP used (untrue) stories of immigrant famlies receiving £35,000 to help them uy houses. In London, an area with eye watering house prices, Labour lost control of 18 authorities and the Conservatives gained 11. Anti-demolition campaigners split the vote in Liverpool. In Lambeth, where Labour bucked the trend, the Labour leader said that housing issues helped Labour win Lambeth. (See the link to Inside Housing for more detail).
Crucially the Labour Party has encouraged local councils to privatise their housing stock or hand it over to so-called "arms length" companies (ALMOs). This has had a dramatic effect on Labour support in the country according to the Defend Council Housing campaign.
Locally this leaves little option for the local council to effect supply and demand except through participation with the private sector. Unfortunately private sector developer want cleared land not occupied space. By using the government Pathfinder programme local authorities can hide the the process of acting as partner of a private developer under the disguise of revitalising inner cities.
Much of the commitment to Pathfinder was funded through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wanted to give John Prescott something to do and a big budget. The net result of the dimise of the Deputy Prime Minister's fortunes might well be a scaling back of Pathfinder funds.
Gateshead has already failed to get all the money it wanted in this year of Pathfinder. The large sums promised to revitalise areas depend on private developers pumping in money on the back of government money. Hence the less central government cash the less matching private cash and the less redevelopment. Money could go further if refurbishment rather than demolition was on the agenda.
This week Gateshead residents were told the demolition of 440 homes would be in two stages - underlining the slow trickle of money that the council have really secured rather than the big numbers they tend to quote from their most optimistic dreams. Stage 2 of demolition is still 2 years away in 2008. Residents will have to put their lives on hold for a further 2 years and 2 sets of local elections. If policy like this is repeated nationwide then housing might well become more than a local issue.
Link: Inside Housing
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Three Empty Chairs
Not an exciting image of democracy in action but the response of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats to an invitation to an eve of poll meeting by Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association.Over 75 local people turned up for an hour long debate on the future of their community. Candidates who attended included all three Conservative Party candidates and the two independent candidates.
Letters were read out from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats which seemed to indicated that they were too busy to meet 75 constituents.
The debate was lively. It concentrated on the proposals by Gateshead Council to demolish 440 homes in the Saltwell Ward but also included debate on the problems of Gateshead Town Centre.
The results in the early hours of Friday morning, provided no-change to the political makeup of the council as a whole - albeit a one seat gain for the Liberal Democrats. The turnout was just under 37%.
The Residents Association was pleased that, as a non-party political body, it organised the only public meeting throughout the campaign and offered the only public platform for the contenders to voice their ideas for the area. Democracy can only function well if the voters have a chance to question their representatives in the view of the association and we will seek to do that at every opportunity.
Link: Gateshead Council Election Results 2006
Monday, May 01, 2006
Pathfinder Area Boasts £250,000 Home - Before Demolition
Saltwell and Bensham, branded by pathfinder as a failing housing market, has had property selling at more than £250,000 within 500 metres of homes scheduled for demolition. (Source: ourproproperty.co.uk)
Pathfinder is supposed to be the answer to failing housing markets, mass abandoned property, and is supposed to provided economic re-generation. The problem with Saltwell and Bensham is that it has never had a failing housing market but rather a housing market that reflected the lower prices in the north east. As housing prices have boomed in the last 5 years Saltwell and Bensham has seen a tripling of house prices and, now it has reached the quarter million barrier, a quadroupling of prices.
The best thing for pathfinder is to renovate homes. Provide environmental improvements and let the housing market handle itself without the drastic step of demolition.
Link: www.ourproperty.co.uk
Pathfinder is supposed to be the answer to failing housing markets, mass abandoned property, and is supposed to provided economic re-generation. The problem with Saltwell and Bensham is that it has never had a failing housing market but rather a housing market that reflected the lower prices in the north east. As housing prices have boomed in the last 5 years Saltwell and Bensham has seen a tripling of house prices and, now it has reached the quarter million barrier, a quadroupling of prices.
The best thing for pathfinder is to renovate homes. Provide environmental improvements and let the housing market handle itself without the drastic step of demolition.
Link: www.ourproperty.co.uk
Residents Campaign Makes Demolition An Election Issue
Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association have called an eve of poll meeting for all candidates in the local council elections. The meeting, to be held at Whitehall Road Methodist Church on 3rd May at 7.30, is an opportunity for residents to put their questions to the candidates.
Reaction has already included a restatement of Liberal-Democrat policy to insist on referendums where demolition is proposed. The Conservative Party candidates have gone further supporting the residents association position of renovation and not demolition. Independent candidates have been campaigning on a policy of rejecting demolition.
As a non-party political body the residents association is delighted that it is getting overwealming cross-party support for it's long held belief that renovation rather than demolition is the answer in Saltwell and Bensham.
All residents are warmly invited to express their views at this weeks' meeting.
Reaction has already included a restatement of Liberal-Democrat policy to insist on referendums where demolition is proposed. The Conservative Party candidates have gone further supporting the residents association position of renovation and not demolition. Independent candidates have been campaigning on a policy of rejecting demolition.
As a non-party political body the residents association is delighted that it is getting overwealming cross-party support for it's long held belief that renovation rather than demolition is the answer in Saltwell and Bensham.
All residents are warmly invited to express their views at this weeks' meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)