Grandmother Stops Demolition In Liverpool

Elizabeth Pascoe. a Liverpool grandmother, was today told by a High Court Judge that her human rights had been violated when John Prescott issued a compulsory purchase order on her home.

Mr Justice Forbes further ruled that Mrs Pascoe’s human rights to private and family life had been violated by Mr Prescott’s decision. Philip Shiner, the solicitor who represented Mrs Pascoe, said: “This was a test case, which means that this victory will benefit people across the country who are affected by the Pathfinder scheme.”

The case was won on three separate grounds including human rights law. The Judge also found that inadequate information had been given to residents concerning demolition. A similarity with Gateshead where the word "demolition" did not appear in any of the consultation material.

The Edge Lane scheme was described as “social cleansing” by Jane Kennedy, the local Labour MP.


Link: The Times

Pathfinder Faces £1.2 billion funding gap.

Pathfinder cash seems to be running out nationally as Chairmen of the housing renewal projects are now begging government to retain funding commitments.

The pathfinder project was a pet project of John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, but has now fallen foul of government reshuffles and spending priorities. Demolition targets by 2018 have now been reduced by a third and "vague commitments" to further funding is undermining the project according to 'Inside Housing'.

Meanwhile market forces are pushing up prices in pathfinder areas making demolition even more expensive and in some areas where regeneration and mass demolition have been used there is upward change in the number of empty properties - something pathfinder was supposed to resolve.



Link: Inside Housing

Report on Pathfinder finds residents could lose up to £35,000 on average

As Gateshead Council keeps making reassuring noises about its plans to demolish 440 homes in Saltwell and Bensham a report by the influential Joesph Rowentree foundations says residents could end up £35,000 worse off by selling to the council.

In an echo of the comments already made by Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association the pathfinder study found;

"A particular concern has arisen about the ‘'affordability gap' between the statutory compensation packages paid to relocated owner-occupiers and the actual cost of purchasing an alternative property in a different area."

In other words even where residents are paid the maximum compensation they can find themselves short of money to buy a new place to live. Gateshead Council answers this criticism by pointing to low cost loans - assuming the residents can afford to repay the loan!

The Rowentree Report does acknowledge the need for housing renewal. It even says there is a place for demolition. The problem is that pathfinder money has been perceived as conditional on demolition and demolition is being suggested in places where there is no need for demolition.

In Saltwell and Bensham market forces are raising prices 10% a year. The reality is that the cost of buying property for demolition is rising quickly making the policy itself unaffordable.

The Rowntree Report has to sum up the case for housing renewal across England. The problem remains that Saltwell and Bensham does not need demolition as part of the package and residents could lose £35,000 in an area where average salaries are half that amount.


Link: Summary of Findings

More Flawed Partial Consultation From Gateshead Council

When Gateshead Council wants to talk housing policy it tries to keep it quiet so it gets the answers it wants. This summer Gateshead had yet another housing consultation. Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association, with more than 1,000 members, were not invited to comment. Instead the well tried method of large boards with interesting local history of housing and little else.

The result of the consultation was just 230 people were consulted. Top of the list of housing problems was affordability. This isn't surprising since Gateshead Council's demolition strategy has been to bulldoze affordable homes and replace them with expensive new property.

However the Gateshead Council spin machine was active. The phrase "Family Homes" is used to justify demolition of older property and sure enough Gateshead Council brush asside affordabilty by putting "family homes" as an issue. Unfortunately for the council if you read the statistics properly only 17 people, less than 10% of a totally unscientific survey, named the lack of "family homes" as a problem.

As Gateshead Council continues with its controversial demolition of 440 homes in Saltwell and Bensham it will probably use this totally non-scientific survey of 230 random members of the public to justify the need for "family homes" while carefully ignoring the fact it is demolishing plenty of affordable homes.

Once again Gateshead Council manage to keep a consultation almost entirely secret.


Links:
Gateshead Council Official Consultation Page
Results of Consultation