Council News is the official publication of Gateshead Council and has flattered our campaign in recent issues. It wasn't intentional but the Council are saying something when they feel the need to parade full page articles on how wonderful demolition is. If demolition really was that popular the local independent media would have picked up that story some months ago.
The fact is that the only publications on Tyneside advocating demolition is published by the councils that are getting the government cash to support demolition.
The latest issue of Council News has Mr and Mrs Dawson thrilled at their new 4 bedroomed home with garden. Helped by Gateshead Council.
The mathematics of how they could move from an £80,000 Edwardian terrace to a 4 bedroomed house isn't mentioned. It is claimed the new property is local. Currently 4 bedroomed property in the locality has been reaching prices of up to £250,000.
One possibility is the much publicised equity loan. In other words your new home is partly owned by Gateshead Council - could this be the reason why Mr and Mrs Dawson are converts to the cause of demolition.
The Dawsons were helped by Deborah McKenna, the council officer who famously "penciled in" answers to a customer satisfaction survey in order to "help" a resident who was moved by Gateshead Council. Was Ms McKenna as helpful with these residents to secure their "delight" at having their home demolished?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
A good idea at the time ..
It must have seemed a good idea at the time, said one of the residents, peering at the Planning Aid map during their "drop in" session on 31st May.
The map in question was an Ordinance Survey map of the pathfinder area and the immediate area outside. People were invited to put on stickers for bits they liked and stickers for bits they didn't like. Ok so far. The only problem was scale and audience.
If you didn't like your neighbour's fence you put a negative sticker in your street. However the sticker covered the whole street and no meaning was conveyed. So did the sticker mean that you didn't like the pink colour of your neighbour's door or did it mean the whole street should be demolished. In other words it conveyed no meaning and, in the words of TV quiz shows, was just a bit of fun. Or, as the council have done in the past, will this less than accurate survey demonstrate that x percent of residents want their own street demolished. Who knows - that's the nature of the council's poor consultation process.
Of course the location of the drop-in, at the leisure centre, meant that literally anyone could put a sticker on the board or make a comment. The volunteer planners were delighted to hear a woman exclaim that she was excited by all the new design ideas for the area. A small crowd assembled beside her and one person asked her where she lived. It transpired that she didn't live in the area and she was just using the leisure centre but she was a design student!
So there we have it. Anyone could make a comment and place a sticker on a map. Neither were really finding out anything new about the area. Some would say that this was the whole point to generate a warm feeling about the appearance of listening to residents but in practice not even targetting the people who face demolition of their homes.
The map in question was an Ordinance Survey map of the pathfinder area and the immediate area outside. People were invited to put on stickers for bits they liked and stickers for bits they didn't like. Ok so far. The only problem was scale and audience.
If you didn't like your neighbour's fence you put a negative sticker in your street. However the sticker covered the whole street and no meaning was conveyed. So did the sticker mean that you didn't like the pink colour of your neighbour's door or did it mean the whole street should be demolished. In other words it conveyed no meaning and, in the words of TV quiz shows, was just a bit of fun. Or, as the council have done in the past, will this less than accurate survey demonstrate that x percent of residents want their own street demolished. Who knows - that's the nature of the council's poor consultation process.
Of course the location of the drop-in, at the leisure centre, meant that literally anyone could put a sticker on the board or make a comment. The volunteer planners were delighted to hear a woman exclaim that she was excited by all the new design ideas for the area. A small crowd assembled beside her and one person asked her where she lived. It transpired that she didn't live in the area and she was just using the leisure centre but she was a design student!
So there we have it. Anyone could make a comment and place a sticker on a map. Neither were really finding out anything new about the area. Some would say that this was the whole point to generate a warm feeling about the appearance of listening to residents but in practice not even targetting the people who face demolition of their homes.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Drop in and Chill Out
When residents were invited to a Drop-In to find out about plans for their community here in Gateshead they were treated by yet another bizarre twist to the demolition story. Gateshead Council have now asked a volunteer group called Planning Aid to help residents.
Most residents didn't have a clue as to what they were or why they are "helping" Gateshead Council. One resident was treated to a 10 minute explanation and seemed none the wiser for it.
It transpired that Planning Aid North have been called in to advise the community on good design and choosing the right developer. One local housing campaigner asked whether that meant residents could vote on what developer will be allowed to build on post-demolition Gateshead. The answer was no. Another asked whether the suggestions from residents would be implemented. The answer was that this could not be guaranteed. Yet another asked whether, if residents didn't like demolition, this would be withdrawn. Again the answer was that Planning Aid had just come to the brief and assumed everyone agreed with demolition as Gateshead Council told them - they were soon better informed.
The Planning Aiders all seemed to be students of planning who had no connection with Gateshead. So living with their recommendations wasn't part of their brief. They styled themselves as "resident volunteers" although not actually resident in the community.
Planning Aid were brought in by Gateshead Council to help the community and build community resources. There was an irony in all this since Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association have run a number of community events over the last couple of years but are ignored by Gateshead Council simply because we disagree on demolition. Instead of enagaging with the community directly they find it necessary to get yet another group of consultants to persuade residents to accept a world involving the demolition of homes.
Some Gateshead officers were around saying that they told the truth, unlike the residents association. Missing out the little fact that Gateshead officers omitted the word demolition from every part of their original 2005 consultation - so much for the truth. One did reveal little snippets of what we already believed. He casually let slip that renovation in the "avenues" was really completing the housing project that was never finished 20 years ago and that most of the other renovation areas were council owned property. He also confirmed that the cost of the demolition of 440 homes would be a staggering £40 million leaving little for good design or renovation.
Little was said of the council leader's pledge that everyone would notice the difference in their area as most of the area was marked "yellow" meaning managed or, as a council official put it, making sure you get your bins emptied.
Most residents didn't have a clue as to what they were or why they are "helping" Gateshead Council. One resident was treated to a 10 minute explanation and seemed none the wiser for it.
It transpired that Planning Aid North have been called in to advise the community on good design and choosing the right developer. One local housing campaigner asked whether that meant residents could vote on what developer will be allowed to build on post-demolition Gateshead. The answer was no. Another asked whether the suggestions from residents would be implemented. The answer was that this could not be guaranteed. Yet another asked whether, if residents didn't like demolition, this would be withdrawn. Again the answer was that Planning Aid had just come to the brief and assumed everyone agreed with demolition as Gateshead Council told them - they were soon better informed.
The Planning Aiders all seemed to be students of planning who had no connection with Gateshead. So living with their recommendations wasn't part of their brief. They styled themselves as "resident volunteers" although not actually resident in the community.
Planning Aid were brought in by Gateshead Council to help the community and build community resources. There was an irony in all this since Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association have run a number of community events over the last couple of years but are ignored by Gateshead Council simply because we disagree on demolition. Instead of enagaging with the community directly they find it necessary to get yet another group of consultants to persuade residents to accept a world involving the demolition of homes.
Some Gateshead officers were around saying that they told the truth, unlike the residents association. Missing out the little fact that Gateshead officers omitted the word demolition from every part of their original 2005 consultation - so much for the truth. One did reveal little snippets of what we already believed. He casually let slip that renovation in the "avenues" was really completing the housing project that was never finished 20 years ago and that most of the other renovation areas were council owned property. He also confirmed that the cost of the demolition of 440 homes would be a staggering £40 million leaving little for good design or renovation.
Little was said of the council leader's pledge that everyone would notice the difference in their area as most of the area was marked "yellow" meaning managed or, as a council official put it, making sure you get your bins emptied.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)