Local Government Association "says no" to Pathfinder

The Local Government Association last week came out against Pathfinder. Specifically it called for a rejection of jargon so people could understand the services local authorities were supposed to be delivering. The LGA emphasised how important it is to communicate clearly. In the case of Pathfinder the LGA suggested dropping the word all together.

This has long been the position of Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association. The 2005 Pathfinder consultations, that failed to even mention demolition,  relied on obscure terminology to disguise the demolition proposals. A National Audit Office report agreed with us when it stated that good practice was to use plain English. Gateshead Council chose to avoid plain English when trying to get residents to agree to mass demolition. One word they used was "home zone". This was literally translated from the Dutch experiments with car free towns and villages. Not exactly the most relevant term to use in central Gateshead. This was typical of the studious attempts the planners used not to include the word demolition and secure popular support for turning central Gateshead into a grassed wasteland.

Now the LGA have said that the word "pathfinder" is misleading jargon that should not be used may we suggest an alternative more honest word - "demolition".

Links

Local Government Association

They Were Told - Gateshead Council Turn 180 Degrees

In a bizarre about turn Gateshead Council lawyers have quashed the decision of their own Planning Committee regarding demolition in Saltwell and Bensham. The about turn was caused by SAVE Britain's Heritage who have consistently told Gateshead Council that they were acting unlawfully. To avoid the embarrassment of another court defeat Gateshead's legal eagles have written to lawyers acting for SAVE in the following terms;

"The Council agrees not to demolish any of the properties in the application area until it its receipt of a lawful decision for prior approval of demolition" (note this is an accurate quote including errors)

This means that for the second time Gateshead's keen planners have gone to a Planning Committee with an unlawful request to demolish. On the 4th February this year during the Planning Committee hearing some 22 objections were made including submissions on the legality of the decision. During the Planning Committee objections were brushed aside including the advice from SAVE.

SAVE described demolition in Saltwell and Bensham as a "national scandal" when they visited the area.

Links
SAVE

£350 Million for pathfinder in the coming year

Minister for Demolition Ian Wright has announced that £350 million has been put aside for 9 pathfinders and 3 other housing projects in the country. The last time Ian Wright was interviewed on regional television about the controversial pathfinder programme he engaged in an incoherent babble of New Labour slogans about community. Little has changed with the current funding statement.

At a time when the country is suffering from housing market failure the idea that spending £350 million on demolishing more property will jump start the housing market puts Mr Wright somewhere between Mars and Pluto. Dividing roughly by 12 the £350 million will work out at approximately £29 million per area. In NewcastleGateshead the Newcastle side has traditionally taken about 60% of the cash which leaves £11 million for Gateshead over 5 areas. So assuming Saltwell and Bensham is equal to the rest we are looking at about £2 million for our area.

The 440 homes that the Council want to demolish will cost them about £39 million. So only £37 million short of the Council's dream option of a wasteland of grass for private developers to make a mint.

So in the next year they can afford to demolish one more street in Saltwell and Bensham or provide renovation money for hundreds of families. Logic would say that renovation is the best option. However pathfinder isn't about logic. Pathfinder is the process of spending public money to enrich large developers. This week's Channel 4 Despatches programme showed how PFI projects were unavailable for renovation of schools but were available for demolition. This is because PFI and Pathfinder share the same dogmatic ideological mindset of doing what is necessary to bring profit to the hands of private developers rather than what is necessary for building communities.

Link
24 Dash