The national temperature for mass demolition in the north is changing. Blackburn council has recently found that Ruth Kelly, the new Secretary of State for Local Government, is not as keen on demolition as her predecssors. Kelly has refused permission for Blackburn to go ahead with a compulsory purchase order involving 152 homes in Darwen.
The area, earmarked as part of the housing renewal pathfinder, was to have been demolished to make way for a new school and "affordable homes". However the Secreatry of State said, in a letter to the council, that she was not persuaded that housing was in "low demand" and the assessment process by the council had been "flawed".
The inspector who headed the inquiry into the compulsory purchase order had concluded that there was not a compelling reason in the public interest for the land to be aquired by the council through compulsory purchase.
Here in Saltwell and Bensham the council has been reluctant to use compulsory purchase for it's proposal to demolish 440 homes. The fact that even the council's own surveys showed only 25% approval for the plan may well have been the reason why Gateshead Council has avoided compulsory purchase. Although it has implied that it is not using compulsory purchase powers to allow people to "voluntarily" sell their homes to the council it must be well aware of the scrutiny that would be applied to a compulsory scheme. Many residents should ask themselves why the council is avoiding compulsory purchase or whether the council is simply avoiding the Secretary of State examing the £680,000 flawed consultation process.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Survey: Pathfinder does not narrow house prices
It was Mrs Thatcher who said that you can't buck the market. Of course government spending, as a huge contributor to the economy, can influence things. However the problem with government trying to influence the market is that the market has a weird way of biting back.
Inside Housing reports that an analysis of the best performing Housing Renewal Pathfinders shows that it does little to improve house prices in the area when compared to house prices outside the pathfinder. Consultancy Ecotec, not employed by the pathfinder, did an independent analysis of the effects of pathfinder.
The report does say that that pathfinder can bring about other benefits on which it should be judged. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to brign about "housing market renewal". Unfortunately for government that was the reason it was created.
Link: Inside Housing
Inside Housing reports that an analysis of the best performing Housing Renewal Pathfinders shows that it does little to improve house prices in the area when compared to house prices outside the pathfinder. Consultancy Ecotec, not employed by the pathfinder, did an independent analysis of the effects of pathfinder.
The report does say that that pathfinder can bring about other benefits on which it should be judged. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to brign about "housing market renewal". Unfortunately for government that was the reason it was created.
Link: Inside Housing
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Rising House Prices May Scupper Pathfinder
House prices in the north rose 11.1 per cent on average this year according to a report in this weeks Journal newpaper. A Tyneside flat in Jesmond is now £165,000 to buy. Public service unions representing the firemen, nurses etc are now worried that homes are not affordable.
With the mass demolition plans of Gateshead council progressing at a snails pace time is now against the bulldozer. Every day purchasing homes is leaving the council's plans unaffordable and a waste of public money. Tyneside flats in Saltwell and Bensham, could quickly reach £100,000 and when the cost of demolition is factored in along with compensation there won't be much change out of £120,000. Confirmation of the upward move in prices recently came from the house bought buy Gateshead Council for £117,000 and flats now commanding at least £70,000.
Gateshead Council, in their latest news, claim to have bought just 35 out of the 440 homes scheduled for demolition. With current price rises they are going to need about £40 million just to pay the bill for demolition.
Gone are the days when streets in the north were being sold for £1 just to get investment through the door. In Newcastle the housing ALMO (Arms Length Management Company) has 200 enquiries for every property it advertises for rent. In Gateshead similar numbers are rumoured. Whichever way you look at it demolishing homes people want to live in is looking more and more like a white elephant.
With the mass demolition plans of Gateshead council progressing at a snails pace time is now against the bulldozer. Every day purchasing homes is leaving the council's plans unaffordable and a waste of public money. Tyneside flats in Saltwell and Bensham, could quickly reach £100,000 and when the cost of demolition is factored in along with compensation there won't be much change out of £120,000. Confirmation of the upward move in prices recently came from the house bought buy Gateshead Council for £117,000 and flats now commanding at least £70,000.
Gateshead Council, in their latest news, claim to have bought just 35 out of the 440 homes scheduled for demolition. With current price rises they are going to need about £40 million just to pay the bill for demolition.
Gone are the days when streets in the north were being sold for £1 just to get investment through the door. In Newcastle the housing ALMO (Arms Length Management Company) has 200 enquiries for every property it advertises for rent. In Gateshead similar numbers are rumoured. Whichever way you look at it demolishing homes people want to live in is looking more and more like a white elephant.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Twenty years and counting
A letter to the local paper this week (Evening Chronicle 3/8/6) reminds the residents of Saltwell and Bensham that the current demolition plans for the area are not the first time the council has promised regeneration.
Twenty years ago councillors were up in arms to save the "Avenues" - a series of streets in the centre of Saltwell and Bensham. A transport plan envisaged putting a main road through the centre of these Victorian terraces and a campaign, led by local councillors, saved the streets for the future. This process seemlessly morphed into the Avenues Project that created a conservation area and, be coincidence, protected the housing the councillors lived in from demolition.
The problem with the Avenues Project was that it was never really completed. Jim Simpson, writing in the Chronicle, recalls that the cash ran out and money was allocated for other projects. Instead of the Avenues Project being expanded to the benefit of the whole of Saltwell and Bensham it concentrated on a few streets and stopped.
Jim Simpson thinks that the unfinshed business of twenty years ago has led to mistrust by residents today regarding current the regeneration programme. Of course he is right. With millions of pounds required to buy property for demolition and additional cash being dependent on private sector development it is private sector profit rather than public policy determining the agenda. More local cynicism comes because the local councillors that now support demolition are precisely the same people who argued against demolition twenty years ago and now live in a conservation area that was the result of that campaign.
Today the Avenues Project remains unfinished business for many residents. Money dried up quickly after the initial flourish of activity. Under current proposals we are asked to believe that 95 per cent of the programme is refurbishment and only 5 per cent demolition. However it does not take rocket science to work out that the cost of buying homes for demolition will take more than £30 million - a huge chunk of the available cash. Many residents feel that after the demolitions there will be little left to improve the rest of the area and they will be in a re-run of the problem Jim Simpson highlighted.
The choice should be simple for Gateshead Council. You cant spend money twice. Either refurbish a lot of property or demolish a 440 homes. The residents aren't stupid and history tells us the money runs out.
Twenty years ago councillors were up in arms to save the "Avenues" - a series of streets in the centre of Saltwell and Bensham. A transport plan envisaged putting a main road through the centre of these Victorian terraces and a campaign, led by local councillors, saved the streets for the future. This process seemlessly morphed into the Avenues Project that created a conservation area and, be coincidence, protected the housing the councillors lived in from demolition.
The problem with the Avenues Project was that it was never really completed. Jim Simpson, writing in the Chronicle, recalls that the cash ran out and money was allocated for other projects. Instead of the Avenues Project being expanded to the benefit of the whole of Saltwell and Bensham it concentrated on a few streets and stopped.
Jim Simpson thinks that the unfinshed business of twenty years ago has led to mistrust by residents today regarding current the regeneration programme. Of course he is right. With millions of pounds required to buy property for demolition and additional cash being dependent on private sector development it is private sector profit rather than public policy determining the agenda. More local cynicism comes because the local councillors that now support demolition are precisely the same people who argued against demolition twenty years ago and now live in a conservation area that was the result of that campaign.
Today the Avenues Project remains unfinished business for many residents. Money dried up quickly after the initial flourish of activity. Under current proposals we are asked to believe that 95 per cent of the programme is refurbishment and only 5 per cent demolition. However it does not take rocket science to work out that the cost of buying homes for demolition will take more than £30 million - a huge chunk of the available cash. Many residents feel that after the demolitions there will be little left to improve the rest of the area and they will be in a re-run of the problem Jim Simpson highlighted.
The choice should be simple for Gateshead Council. You cant spend money twice. Either refurbish a lot of property or demolish a 440 homes. The residents aren't stupid and history tells us the money runs out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)