Newcastle City Council's use of pathfinder may have come to a juddering halt due to objections by the highways agency. The proposal to build 2,100 homes in the west end of the city by the Lib-Dem led council would lead to massive increases in traffic say the Highways Agency.
Councillor Greg Stone has cried foul claiming that "The Highways Agency is failing to deliver joined up government". Councillor Stone was supported by Labour MP David Clelland who said "This is unnecessary bureaucracy and a waste of public money".
However despite the claim that this is a failure of joined up government the fact that housing re-development is being looked at from the point of view of whether the transport infrastructure can support more housing is joined up government. It would be hardly fair to new residents if they found that the local area had poor transport and they had problems getting to shops, schools and the workplace.
Far greater waste of public money comes when consultants paid by local councils fail to do a proper environmental and transport audit. Something residents of Saltwell and Bensham have pointed out in Gateshead's pathfinder programme where the largest public transport provider in Gateshead wasn't even asked about their views on the demolition of 440 homes in close proximity to popular bus routes.
Pathfinder encourages councils to provide brownfield sites to millionaire property developers with little consideration of building communities or sustainable transport links.
Link:
The Journal
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Things that go bump in the night!
Strange noises can be heard in Gateshead's pathfinder district after dark. The council's leafleting team seem to have gone all shy on residents and only come out at night. Residents are now reporting late-night leaflets popping through the letterbox.
The pressure and persistance of Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association seems to be having the effect of spurring the council into a campaign of leaflets to explain why it is demolishing 440 homes in the middle of a homeless crisis in Gateshead. The leaflet "Your Area, Your News" explains all the "property improvements" in Saltwell and Bensham. A map, neatly divided into phases, is included.
However before popping the champagne corks many residents will already have noticed the small print which says: "there is no guarantee that we will be able to deliver the full programme of improvements set out in the plan."
Later on it says: "Due to the uncertainty of funding we will have to regularly review the improvement plan with local people".
Residents, who were once told that pathfinder was 95% about renovation, will be surprised at these admissions. To demolish 440 homes the cost will be close to £40 million yet the low cost improvements that would revitalise the area are subject to uncertainty of funding.
Trying to explain to people how vital repairs and renovation is delayed in order to fund unnecessary demolition is part of the surreal world in which Gateshead Council and the pathfinder programme finds itself. It perhaps also explains why the council prefers to deliver the message at the dead of night.
The pressure and persistance of Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association seems to be having the effect of spurring the council into a campaign of leaflets to explain why it is demolishing 440 homes in the middle of a homeless crisis in Gateshead. The leaflet "Your Area, Your News" explains all the "property improvements" in Saltwell and Bensham. A map, neatly divided into phases, is included.
However before popping the champagne corks many residents will already have noticed the small print which says: "there is no guarantee that we will be able to deliver the full programme of improvements set out in the plan."
Later on it says: "Due to the uncertainty of funding we will have to regularly review the improvement plan with local people".
Residents, who were once told that pathfinder was 95% about renovation, will be surprised at these admissions. To demolish 440 homes the cost will be close to £40 million yet the low cost improvements that would revitalise the area are subject to uncertainty of funding.
Trying to explain to people how vital repairs and renovation is delayed in order to fund unnecessary demolition is part of the surreal world in which Gateshead Council and the pathfinder programme finds itself. It perhaps also explains why the council prefers to deliver the message at the dead of night.
Joined Up (Local) Government
There was a time when we were promised "joined up government". Policies in one area contrasted with policies in another area organised so those silly little conflicts apparent in bureaucracies were smoothed over to the advantage of citizens.
Its not just national government that cant join up government. Consider the position of Gateshead Council. A whole street of boarded up housing and proposals to demolish 440 homes in central Gateshead instead of refurbishing and renting. Some 440 families having to find new homes. Meanwhile over 600 people are registered as homeless in Gateshead and there are no homes for rent at the largest social landlord the Gateshead Housing Company which manages all Gateshead Council's housing stock.
Local residents were told that demolition was necessary because of an oversupply of housing and too few people. They were told that homes were empty.
The housing crisis for ordinary people in Gateshead is only matched by inept policy to deal with it. Instead of making the most of affordable housing the Council is using demolition to promote market price rises and an opportunity for millionaire property developers meanwhile 600+ people who need homes are being denied affordable places to live.
Gateshead Council - making a mockery of joined up government.
Its not just national government that cant join up government. Consider the position of Gateshead Council. A whole street of boarded up housing and proposals to demolish 440 homes in central Gateshead instead of refurbishing and renting. Some 440 families having to find new homes. Meanwhile over 600 people are registered as homeless in Gateshead and there are no homes for rent at the largest social landlord the Gateshead Housing Company which manages all Gateshead Council's housing stock.
Local residents were told that demolition was necessary because of an oversupply of housing and too few people. They were told that homes were empty.
The housing crisis for ordinary people in Gateshead is only matched by inept policy to deal with it. Instead of making the most of affordable housing the Council is using demolition to promote market price rises and an opportunity for millionaire property developers meanwhile 600+ people who need homes are being denied affordable places to live.
Gateshead Council - making a mockery of joined up government.
Monday, February 12, 2007
New Housing Is Not Good Enough Says Govt Watchdog
As Gateshead Council plan to demolish 440 homes in Saltwell and Bensham the sad truth is that new housing developments really are not that great. At least that is opinion of the Government's own housing watchdog.
Over the last five years CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) has been surveying new housing. The result is that CABE rate 82% of new build property as poor. Some are so poor that CABE believe they should not have received planning permission. Designer Wayne Hemmingway agreed with CABE on BBC Radio 4 and added that many developments were "souless". Not the sort of place for building lasting communities.
Yet Gateshead Council go out of their way to promote the idea that old property is bad and that new property is good. A position at odds with design experts and CABE.
Just a few weeks ago Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association tried to ask Gateshead Councillors about their proposals for what would replace the 440 demolished property. The Council Leader sidestepped the question but did mention consultation. However the CABE results indicate that more than 4 out 5 new properties are of poor quality. The madness is that homes with character that were built to such high standards they are occupied after 100 years are to be demolished and replaced with poor quality development constructed at the whim of Goverment targets..
It seems a case of never mind the quality just look at the profits for housing developers.
Links:
CABE Survey
CABE Homepage
Over the last five years CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) has been surveying new housing. The result is that CABE rate 82% of new build property as poor. Some are so poor that CABE believe they should not have received planning permission. Designer Wayne Hemmingway agreed with CABE on BBC Radio 4 and added that many developments were "souless". Not the sort of place for building lasting communities.
Yet Gateshead Council go out of their way to promote the idea that old property is bad and that new property is good. A position at odds with design experts and CABE.
Just a few weeks ago Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association tried to ask Gateshead Councillors about their proposals for what would replace the 440 demolished property. The Council Leader sidestepped the question but did mention consultation. However the CABE results indicate that more than 4 out 5 new properties are of poor quality. The madness is that homes with character that were built to such high standards they are occupied after 100 years are to be demolished and replaced with poor quality development constructed at the whim of Goverment targets..
It seems a case of never mind the quality just look at the profits for housing developers.
Links:
CABE Survey
CABE Homepage
Friday, February 09, 2007
Residents Fight Compulsory Purchase In Lancashire
Inspiration for Saltwell and Bensham Residents comes today from Lancashire where residents of Derker and Werneth have been faced with unnecessary demolition proposals. A massive number of 106 objections against 436 compulsory purchase orders have been filed indicating a strength of feeling against demolition.
Robert McCracken QC is representing the residents at an inquiry. McCracken worked on the recent successful defence of homes in Liverpool by representing pensioner Elizabeth Pascoe. The Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association have also made enquiries with Robert McCracken's chambers in the expectation that Gateshead Council will be forced to try compulsory purchase orders here.
In the opening cross-examination it was revealled that there were no problems with abandonment in the area and that average purchase prices for the homes under threat would be more than £52,000 and wasteful of tax payers money.
During the enquiry some 34 objectors will be questioned.
Link
Oldham Advertiser
Robert McCracken QC is representing the residents at an inquiry. McCracken worked on the recent successful defence of homes in Liverpool by representing pensioner Elizabeth Pascoe. The Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association have also made enquiries with Robert McCracken's chambers in the expectation that Gateshead Council will be forced to try compulsory purchase orders here.
In the opening cross-examination it was revealled that there were no problems with abandonment in the area and that average purchase prices for the homes under threat would be more than £52,000 and wasteful of tax payers money.
During the enquiry some 34 objectors will be questioned.
Link
Oldham Advertiser
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
An Angry Man
The Leader of Gateshead Council is very angry. His response to Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association at the last council meeting reflects that. He said that he answered 24 questions from residents in November 2005, 18 in February 2006, 7 in March 2006 and this month a further 22 had been submitted. Curiously enough none had been ruled out of order by the Mayor.
So Gateshead's leader wants a limit on democracy. It is understandable from his perspective. Few of the supine elected representatives dare to ask constituent questions and most matters go through with barely a nod and wink. Residents questions on this occasion amounted to the same question but categorised to make it easy to answer. Basically we wanted to find out how much the council had paid for demolition versus renovation with pathfinder funds, how many houses had been bought and how many council officers were being paid by pathfinder.
We got one answer. The council had bought 37 houses this year in Saltwell and Bensham - so only 403 and left to buy!
However the leader then went off piste with a series of meaningless eye watering statistics that were neither specific or anything to do with the questions. He said £50 million this and £200 million that and 95% of the other. The £50 million referred, it seems, to all of BridgingNewcastleGateshead up to 2008 but how much would be spent in Saltwell and Bensham was, shall we say, a little vague. Some 1340 properties would have "improvements" but this could just mean the local environment rather than a grant for double glazing.
He said things like all the neighbourhood plans were agreed by residents without mentioning only 25% of residents in Saltwell and Bensham supported the plan.
The leader concluded with a range of sweeping generalisations.
He was so angry. The subtext of the statement was that councillors know best and how dare you ask us questions.
So Gateshead's leader wants a limit on democracy. It is understandable from his perspective. Few of the supine elected representatives dare to ask constituent questions and most matters go through with barely a nod and wink. Residents questions on this occasion amounted to the same question but categorised to make it easy to answer. Basically we wanted to find out how much the council had paid for demolition versus renovation with pathfinder funds, how many houses had been bought and how many council officers were being paid by pathfinder.
We got one answer. The council had bought 37 houses this year in Saltwell and Bensham - so only 403 and left to buy!
However the leader then went off piste with a series of meaningless eye watering statistics that were neither specific or anything to do with the questions. He said £50 million this and £200 million that and 95% of the other. The £50 million referred, it seems, to all of BridgingNewcastleGateshead up to 2008 but how much would be spent in Saltwell and Bensham was, shall we say, a little vague. Some 1340 properties would have "improvements" but this could just mean the local environment rather than a grant for double glazing.
He said things like all the neighbourhood plans were agreed by residents without mentioning only 25% of residents in Saltwell and Bensham supported the plan.
The leader concluded with a range of sweeping generalisations.
He was so angry. The subtext of the statement was that councillors know best and how dare you ask us questions.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Confused - You Will Be!
Doncaster become the latest council to announce that residents want their homes pulled down - to the complete confusion of residents. After claiming that 61% of residents agreed with the council demolition the council has been facing a backlash as residents go door to door with their own survey.
This was pretty much the experience of residents here in Saltwell and Bensham. The council claimed 74% supported their plan but when the actual figures were produced only 25% actually stated suport. A further 49% supported the council plan without the demolition element and 20% rejected it.
Mexborough residents accused the council of bullying and pushing residents towards answers. This sounds very similar to the questions asked in Saltwell and Bensham such as "Do you want more green spaces" - which implied demolition without using the 'd' word.
Most pathfinder residents will have been bewildered by the so-called consultation exercise - designed to get a pro-demoltion majority. Another nail in the coffin of real consultation.
Link
DearneToday
This was pretty much the experience of residents here in Saltwell and Bensham. The council claimed 74% supported their plan but when the actual figures were produced only 25% actually stated suport. A further 49% supported the council plan without the demolition element and 20% rejected it.
Mexborough residents accused the council of bullying and pushing residents towards answers. This sounds very similar to the questions asked in Saltwell and Bensham such as "Do you want more green spaces" - which implied demolition without using the 'd' word.
Most pathfinder residents will have been bewildered by the so-called consultation exercise - designed to get a pro-demoltion majority. Another nail in the coffin of real consultation.
Link
DearneToday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)