Pathfinder is a government scheme that encourages local authorities in the north to demolish, rather than renovate, older properties. Over £1.2 billion of taxpayers money is being plunged into mass demolition in the mis-guided belief that private developers want prime inner city land to help homeless people and provide affordable homes.
In fact developers want to provide shareholders with profit.
This week the scheme hit a new low when a home in Manchester was bought for £450,000 so that it can be demolished. Renovation would cost between £75,000 and £100,000.
The reason for this concentration on demolition is that early in the scheme local authorities believed that pathfinder was the only way to get money to improve housing and providing a quantity of demolition was the only way to convince the government that they needed the money. Hence we now have the ridiculous sight of the taxpayer paying to demolish homes at a time of housing crisis.
So in Manchester the pathfinder would rather spend £450,000 to demolish a house than £75,000 to bring it back into use.
Here in Saltwell and Bensham 440 demolitions have been proposed on the same logic. The average price being paid here is £90,000 to demolish every flat. Now it appears that there is no limit on the amount you pay to demolish despite the national lack of affordable homes. People should be asking why we are not spending £1.2 billion on renovation and renewal.
Links
The Sunday Times
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Living in fear: Demolition in Gateshead
Residents who dont want to leave their homes in Saltwell and Bensham are treated to the indifference of both local council officials and law enforcement. If you dont volunteer to sell your home cheaply to Gateshead Council then they will force you out with neglect. Here is the story of just one resident writing to the local police;
"I am a resident from Macadam Street which backs onto Armstrong Street which the council are going to demolish. As you are no doubt aware the council have bought and boarded nearly all the properties in Armstrong Street. This is attracting a lot of local youths who cause mayhem in the back lane and they vandalise the properties and abuse the residents.
I have called the police on numerous occasions, twice when someone was in my back yard, another time when my back gate was kicked in, but nothing ever gets done. I am constantly told that it will take 2 hrs for the police to come and these youths are gone by then. I have found the attitude I often get from the operator when I phone the police very unhelpful. My family and myself have just spent another weekend being harassed and verbally abused by local youths trying to break into properties near my own. I fear it will be my house soon.
I am appalled at the lack of action to stop this anti social behaviour. I do not feel safe in my own home although I read in Policing Matters that the police 'work with residents to understand local issues and provide sustainable solutions over a longer term'. This has gone on for over 2 yrs and is getting worse. Where is the help, where are the solutions. Does anybody care."
Unfortunately Gateshead Council doesn't care. Northumbria Police dont care. The pathfinder cash cow means that people dont matter only the needs of millionaire property development companies.
"I am a resident from Macadam Street which backs onto Armstrong Street which the council are going to demolish. As you are no doubt aware the council have bought and boarded nearly all the properties in Armstrong Street. This is attracting a lot of local youths who cause mayhem in the back lane and they vandalise the properties and abuse the residents.
I have called the police on numerous occasions, twice when someone was in my back yard, another time when my back gate was kicked in, but nothing ever gets done. I am constantly told that it will take 2 hrs for the police to come and these youths are gone by then. I have found the attitude I often get from the operator when I phone the police very unhelpful. My family and myself have just spent another weekend being harassed and verbally abused by local youths trying to break into properties near my own. I fear it will be my house soon.
I am appalled at the lack of action to stop this anti social behaviour. I do not feel safe in my own home although I read in Policing Matters that the police 'work with residents to understand local issues and provide sustainable solutions over a longer term'. This has gone on for over 2 yrs and is getting worse. Where is the help, where are the solutions. Does anybody care."
Unfortunately Gateshead Council doesn't care. Northumbria Police dont care. The pathfinder cash cow means that people dont matter only the needs of millionaire property development companies.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Designing Panville
Last week a Planning Aid event took place in Saltwell and Bensham. Planning Aid claim to be an independent charity that helps communities decide on good design and helps them "appoint a developer".
Residents are rightly nervous of "independent" consultants. The independent consultants that recommended demolition were from GVA Grimley - an international estate agent that owns local estate agent Lamb & Edge (now GVA Lamb & Edge). So they had an interest in sell new property. Planning Aid don't readily declare that their funding comes from the same government department that funds pathfinder but this fact is buried in their website.
Planning Aid was reluctant to talk about Gateshead having already experienced the hostility of residents to demolition. So it was taken for granted that we had a huge area of open space in which to express our good design principles. Instead it showed good design from two sites in the south of England and one from Germany. The presentations glossed over cost until audience questions put into context that the examples shown would cost ten times the average salary of a working person in Tyne and Wear. Later on a Gateshead council official said that this was fine because young executives could afford a half share in a £200,000 property as a stepping stone. Great - but what about the average hospital cleaning looking for affordable property. The hospital cleaner is seeing affordable homes being demolished with no help for low-waged people.
After the presentation we were invited to help design the imaginary town of Panville. Remarkably the most space efficient and public transport friendly solution was terraced housing - exactly the sort of development Gateshead wants to demolish. Residents were invited to use colour pens to illustrate their perfect plan.
Insofar as a exercise helped point out good design it was worthwhile. However because the starting point was a clean slate of space it assumed demolition was part of the process. There was no discussion of how well built traditional homes could be improved to reach the required standard or even an explanation of why the couldn't.
Perhaps the most revealing thing was that one of the main presenters lived in Jesmond. This is an area of Newcastle full of Victorian terraces built by the same builder and to the same design as Saltwell and Bensham. He wasn't recommending demolishing Jesmond!
Residents are rightly nervous of "independent" consultants. The independent consultants that recommended demolition were from GVA Grimley - an international estate agent that owns local estate agent Lamb & Edge (now GVA Lamb & Edge). So they had an interest in sell new property. Planning Aid don't readily declare that their funding comes from the same government department that funds pathfinder but this fact is buried in their website.
Planning Aid was reluctant to talk about Gateshead having already experienced the hostility of residents to demolition. So it was taken for granted that we had a huge area of open space in which to express our good design principles. Instead it showed good design from two sites in the south of England and one from Germany. The presentations glossed over cost until audience questions put into context that the examples shown would cost ten times the average salary of a working person in Tyne and Wear. Later on a Gateshead council official said that this was fine because young executives could afford a half share in a £200,000 property as a stepping stone. Great - but what about the average hospital cleaning looking for affordable property. The hospital cleaner is seeing affordable homes being demolished with no help for low-waged people.
After the presentation we were invited to help design the imaginary town of Panville. Remarkably the most space efficient and public transport friendly solution was terraced housing - exactly the sort of development Gateshead wants to demolish. Residents were invited to use colour pens to illustrate their perfect plan.
Insofar as a exercise helped point out good design it was worthwhile. However because the starting point was a clean slate of space it assumed demolition was part of the process. There was no discussion of how well built traditional homes could be improved to reach the required standard or even an explanation of why the couldn't.
Perhaps the most revealing thing was that one of the main presenters lived in Jesmond. This is an area of Newcastle full of Victorian terraces built by the same builder and to the same design as Saltwell and Bensham. He wasn't recommending demolishing Jesmond!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Why is demolition wrong?
The argument from Gateshead Council as to why 440 people have to lose their homes goes something like this. The properties represent just 5% of the housing stock. Grants dont work because you just have to pay out more grants every few few years if the fundamentals of the community isn't changed - hence demolition is the answer.
Seems plausible. Until you look at the figures published this week by the Newcastle Evening Chronicle. Around 80,000 people across the region are seeking a council house. In Gateshead there are 21,843 council homes now, compared to 37,869 in 1980. The last house was built in 1984 and there are 8,833 people wanting a new or exchanged property.
The crisis is enormous. Gateshead Council refer to the "lack of choice" in homes yet the current "choice" seems to be living in B&B or with parents.
Gateshead Council wants to spend £40 million on demolition during this crisis. It will then replace 440 homes with 160 new developments for families. Unless the developers have their way and build luxury apartments as they have elsewhere in Gateshead.
Gateshead Council claims that families will be able to afford prices of between £150,000 and £200,000 through shared equity schemes or renting. This when the average Tyneside wage is just £17,500 a year. In Salford some 40% of the new build has been bought by investors and has been left empty.
Gateshead Housing Company is "investigating" building as a future option.
The average price Gateshead is paying for demolition is £80,000 to £90,000. It has paid more than £120,000. It seems to regard private builders as some kind of semi-detached branch of social services engaged in building communities rather than making profit.
There is no housing surplus on Tyneside. The trick is to bring together refurbished and modernised traditional property with buyers or potential renters on a low income.
Right now demolition is un-necessary and condemns a generation not to have a decent home of their own.
(Figures from the Newcastle Evening Chronicle 3/9/2007).
Seems plausible. Until you look at the figures published this week by the Newcastle Evening Chronicle. Around 80,000 people across the region are seeking a council house. In Gateshead there are 21,843 council homes now, compared to 37,869 in 1980. The last house was built in 1984 and there are 8,833 people wanting a new or exchanged property.
The crisis is enormous. Gateshead Council refer to the "lack of choice" in homes yet the current "choice" seems to be living in B&B or with parents.
Gateshead Council wants to spend £40 million on demolition during this crisis. It will then replace 440 homes with 160 new developments for families. Unless the developers have their way and build luxury apartments as they have elsewhere in Gateshead.
Gateshead Council claims that families will be able to afford prices of between £150,000 and £200,000 through shared equity schemes or renting. This when the average Tyneside wage is just £17,500 a year. In Salford some 40% of the new build has been bought by investors and has been left empty.
Gateshead Housing Company is "investigating" building as a future option.
The average price Gateshead is paying for demolition is £80,000 to £90,000. It has paid more than £120,000. It seems to regard private builders as some kind of semi-detached branch of social services engaged in building communities rather than making profit.
There is no housing surplus on Tyneside. The trick is to bring together refurbished and modernised traditional property with buyers or potential renters on a low income.
Right now demolition is un-necessary and condemns a generation not to have a decent home of their own.
(Figures from the Newcastle Evening Chronicle 3/9/2007).
Sunday, September 09, 2007
How Democracy Works In Gateshead
Many of the readers of this blog have followed events from the beginning. From the threat to demolish 1,200 homes to the threat to demolish 440 homes. At all times the Residents Association has put out leaflets about demolition followed by ritual attacks by the council on residents. We were called scaremongers, inaccurate and, when muttering under their breath, some council officials branded residents as liars.
Meanwhile the glossy newsletter of Gateshead Council has pictured happy residents delighted that their homes are scheduled for demolition. You would have thought which such delight and support for demolition the council would want the world to know when demolition was due to start.
Of course they don't. Having spent 2 years denying residents claims they pushed out an obscure planning document numbered DC/07/01384/DEM. In a reminder of Arthur Dent's interaction with council officials in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy our local council seems reluctant to tell the press the great news.
The planning application lists a large number of homes for demolition. The "consultation" is expected to run until 24th September 2007 with no date for the final decision.
This is openness and democracy Gateshead style - done under a cloak of secrecy and least publicity in case people want to object.
Of course this is the pathfinder process. High profile good news announcements, attacking objectors, dubious consultations and lack of real community involvement. The ultimate spin where council takes the side of millionaire builders against it's own community. This is how democracy works in Gateshead.
Meanwhile the glossy newsletter of Gateshead Council has pictured happy residents delighted that their homes are scheduled for demolition. You would have thought which such delight and support for demolition the council would want the world to know when demolition was due to start.
Of course they don't. Having spent 2 years denying residents claims they pushed out an obscure planning document numbered DC/07/01384/DEM. In a reminder of Arthur Dent's interaction with council officials in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy our local council seems reluctant to tell the press the great news.
The planning application lists a large number of homes for demolition. The "consultation" is expected to run until 24th September 2007 with no date for the final decision.
This is openness and democracy Gateshead style - done under a cloak of secrecy and least publicity in case people want to object.
Of course this is the pathfinder process. High profile good news announcements, attacking objectors, dubious consultations and lack of real community involvement. The ultimate spin where council takes the side of millionaire builders against it's own community. This is how democracy works in Gateshead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)