The Planning Committee

On Wednesday 17th March Gateshead Ccouncil's Planning Committee met. On the agenda was the demolition of 154 homes in the Bensham area. This is part of the overall 440 demolitions and part of the consultant's recommendation that 1,200 demolitions should take place.

The undemocratic nature of demolition was highlighted by the scope of the Planning Committee's discussion. They could only discuss the method of demolition and not demolition as a policy. So residents could not discuss if their home was going to be bulldozed just which bulldozer they had a particular preference for. Those residents who wanted to object to demolition in principle were sidelined.

The theory of the committee is that councillors are there as the democratic bulwark to scrutinise the work and decisions of officers and, if necessary, to make them think again. However Gateshead Council has been run by one party for so long that most councillors believe they are in a sort of partnership with the officers carrying out mutual back scratching and admiration. The rubber stamp of officer led local government is alive and well in Gateshead Council. In fact the councillors that didn't even bother to turn up were only marginally less active than those that were present.

Nevertheless, despite its flaws, this was one of the few times that actual residents were allowed to speak directly to the council.

Objections were answered by officers with updated meeting papers. Three speakers on behalf of the residents were allowed. There was the question of whether an Environmental Impact Asssessment was needed, a question of the process of demolition in streets with families and young children and a graphic description of living with demolition by a resident. Due to the ristrictive nature of the application process only allowing the narrow question of "methods of demoition" the meeting was largely a pro-forma process in which the ability of the people facing losing their homes were marginalised. The chances of ordinary people engaging with largely professional politicians is remote.

One councillor asked about the EIA but his question was brushed aside by a legal officer whose long rambling answer was close to a foreign language and bore little relationship to the question. Almost no-one understood what she was saying and even she was forced to admit that her long and rambling answer was a specialist part of the law. She was basically arguing that if the legal eagles at the council really thought an EIA was necessary they would have gone ahead with a full planning application rather than using the "prior approvals" process. As usual the legal department provided no written formal opinion thus avoiding any embarrassment if Gateshead Council was taken to court.

Another councillor asked about the conflict of interest where the applicant was Gateshead Council, the EIA Screening Opinion was done by Gateshead Council and then Gateshead Council had to approve the application. This councillor was concerned about the independence of the procedure and that the public would see a conflict of interest. If the councillor had read this blog then she would know that the public are annoyed by the process in which planning seems self approval rather than proper scrutiny. At the meeting the official from the planning department assured the meeting that wearing multiple hats was quite normal and when acting as the planning authority they can be entirely independent of when they act as an applicant.

The general public may not be so sure about this "independence" when faced with a JCB knocking down their home.

The committee did not address the health and safety issues of demolishing one side of a street with families living a few feet away at the other side of the street. Dangerous substances such as asbestos were not discussed and the suggestion of even inconvenience was brushed aside by officials. So much for caring about the health and safety of the public.

Councillor Bob Goldsworthy, a leadership loyalist, congradulated the officers of the council for their report and fine work and moved acceptance of the scheme. Even the officials looked embarrassed at the obvious brown nosing by someone who is supposed to be holding them to account. Goldsworthy 's notes his interests as "housing" on the council website. He has now voted to have 154 fewer houses in the ward next to his own.

Cafe Culture

The current council leadership boasts about the development of the Sage concert hall, the Baltic art gallery and the Millenium Bridge. Each of these was conceived and brought forward under the last Leader of Gateshead Council George Gill. This is carefully forgotten now because George's political background was from the west of Gateshead rather than the centre.

Today's leadership should really be judged on the town centre redevelopment and the mass demolition of homes in Saltwell and Bensham. Here we have a slightly different story.

Many residents participated in surveys about what they wanted for a new town centre. One of the questions was; would you like large nationally known stores like Debenhams in the town centre? The answer would be yes please if you phrase a question like that. Officers of the council did presentations showing artists impressions and implying coffee shops would appear with internet connections, high fashion stores and continental bistros.

It's now a couple of years into the new town centre development. So we checked on progress.

This is not Selfridges or Debenhams but is the view visitors get when they leave the Metro Station in Gateshead. The pawnbroker.

When you have got your payday loan from the pornbroker one of the next convenient stores to spend your money is;

The betting shop.

Many residents were surprised that the council didn't mention that having nationally recognised stores in the town centre was just an aspiration and not a firm plan. The street cafes and the bistros don't seem to have materialised. The only big national store we might get is Tesco - primarily because they own a lot of the land in the town centre.

Less than a mile away from the town centre is the cohesive community of Bensham. Streets of well planned late Victorian residences built ot a high standard for the Victorian craftsman who could afford to buy their own homes. Gateshead Council told residents 5 years ago that, just like the town centre, they had big plans. The shopping areas would be swept away and tree lined boulevards would replace shops. Whole streets would have their back lanes gated and new green arboretums would provide quality green space. New "family homes" with sumptuous gardens would replace ordinary flats and if the residents wanted to stay then Gateshead Council would help. Roads would be redesigned to make public transport more efficient ... and so on. They even had artists impressions of the new Bensham. Just 1200 homes would have to be bulldozed to provide this image of bliss.

Today there are no boulevards. No new homes. Residents have been "made offers they couldn't refuse" in order to move out. The master plan has 440 demlitions in mind and there are no plans for new building. Shop owners have watched their customers disappear as more people moved and many shops on Saltwell Road are struggling to survive.

The promise of cafe culture in the Town Centre and boulevards in Bensham have not been realised. Is it any wonder that the residents of Saltwell and Bensham have become sceptical and cynical when the new master plan is simply to demolish and grass over. No plan and no vision.

Challenging Gateshead Council

Citizens should be able to depend on their local councillors to fight on their behalf when officials come up with schemes that blight ordinary homes of ordinary people. People should feel safe behind their own front door.

Political parties like Labour and the Liberal Democrats claim to represent those who have difficulty representing themselves. In particular the hard working members of the community who have spent a lifetime buying their own home from relatively modest salaries. In Gateshead the Labour Party have been in power for so long they work hand in glove with council officials and never ask the crucial questions they need to in order to represent ordinary people. Unfortunately for ordinary families there are no councillors willing to ask the key questions.

SAVE Britain's Heritage, a national charity, have been supporting ordinary people. Along with residents they have lobbied for renovation and not demolition. In a letter to Gateshead Council they describe Saltwell and Bensham as;

"a carefully planned, cohesive, 19th-century residential development, served by good local shops and amenities. Demolition would not only represent a waste of good housing stock, but also a lost opportunity for the kind of small-scale, ground-level, ‘soft’ regeneration that is needed and is viable in this area "

Saltwell and Bensham Residents Association agree. We have been campaigning against mass demolition for 5 years. 

This week Gateshead Council are attempting, for the fourth time, to get planning permission for the demolition of 154 homes as the first group of 440 planned demolitions. They have no plans to build any replacements and openly admit that the space will be "grassed over" rather than provide any new houses for sale or rent. SAVE believe that this fourth attempt, like the three before it, is unlawful. 

The sadness of the situation is that SAVE are challenging the destruction of historic and viable homes in place of the political process. It is sad to see that councillors, elected by thre people, are defenders of wanton destruction and sit on the side of well paid bureaucrats and millionaire developers. Is it no-wonder people lose faith in the political process.

In the place of politicians properly scrutinising these crazy demolition SAVE have stepped in and are prepared to fight the council in court. 

SAVE Britain's Heritage is well named because they understand that although castles and cathedrals are part of Britain's Heritage so are well built Victorian and Edwardian homes in the centre of Gateshead. There is a lack of affordable housing for ordinary people in Gateshead and demolishing 440 decent homes wont help. Unfortunately Gateshead Council's priority is to create partnerships and profit with the private sector and not help local people have decent homes.

 

Audit Commission Praise Pathfinders

While the Audit Commission have been praising pathfinders for their regeneration efforts the small print in many of areas gives a different impression.

Renew North Staffordshire demolished three times more homes than it built last year. Over 500 homes bulldozed and just 146 built.

BridgingNewcastleGateshead, our very own pathfinder, was said to have performed strongly having demolished 930 homes and refurbished 2,226. The pathfinder is projected to build 24 new properties in 2009/10 of which 16 will be conversions of existing buildings. Over 190 demolitions are planned for the current financial year.

So how could the Audit Commission award the highest level of confidence in what are essentially demolition projects building tiny numbers of new homes?

Surely the Audit Commission would be entirely independent able to review performance without any perceived conflict of interest. Ordinary members of the public whose homes face demolition would like to think so. Unfortunately if you list the board members you will find none other than Jim Coulter the Chairman of BridgingNewcastleGateshead our own local, and well praised, pathfinder. Does it surprise you?

Link
Audit Commission Reports