This is an excerpt from a submission from TRACE to the Housing and Community Safety Select Committee 26th July Wallasey Town Hall
The submission reflects the views of local residents directly affected by the HMRI and living as it were under its shadow. A petition signed by local residents will be presented at the Select Committee meeting which will confirm their support for the position it advances.
What do local residents in the Church Road Masterplan area think of the proposals?Almost all of the residents consulted by TRACE were in support of the regeneration of Church Road. Many residents took the view that it was long overdue and must go ahead now without any further unnecessary delay. Several of those speaking at our meetings said that they had been involved over many years with previous attempts to establish a “Tranmere Urban Village” and had been greatly disappointed when this did not go ahead in the past. They were very keen that regeneration go ahead this time. This is why the supporting petition calls upon Wirral Council to “continue with their improvement planning” for the Church Road Masterplan.
Does support from local residents for Church Road improvement include support for demolition of homes in the areas behind Church Road against the wishes of those living in them?
No it does not. That is why the petition presented tonight will call on Wirral Council “not to make demolition the only option” for those in the target property zone. Amongst those consulted by TRACE the overwhelming majority were opposed to anyone’s home being demolished against their wishes. Several residents who had been in the previous options one to three at the first stage of consultation, spoke of their relief that their properties were no longer targeted for demolition and of their support for those who were now under the threat. Other residents whose properties are in the targeted 52 properties also spoke eloquently at the meeting.
One resident in Seymour Street explained that she had lived there for many years and had seen the area deteriorate. To be under threat of demolition now just as the area is finally looking like it might be on the way back - was described by her as “cruel”.
Another resident in Thompson Street described the many improvements to her home that had been made over many years. She talked of her home with pride and that it had no need of any further work of improvements. It seems her home was now just in the wrong place. She had got a valuation of her home from a local estate agent that was in the region of £130,000. She had been visited by Council officers who had offered her considerably less than this but still a large amount of public money. She did not understand how it could make any sense to spend public money in this way to buy up and then demolish an attractive sound home and then plan to build a new house to a lower specification and with a smaller garden on the same site.
Another resident higher up in Thompson Street in the target zone described how he moved to the area with his seriously ill wife because he could afford the house, which also had a garden even though it needed quite a lot of renovation work. He has been doing that work at his own expense over the last two years and in the midst of this was visited as part of the NRA.
He and his wife have now been told that their property failed the NRA assessment for the 1985 Housing Act and has been therefore deemed unfit for human habitation. This is despite the fact that he was only part way through renovations when the assessment was made and the work now complete makes the house perfect for his needs and fully compliant with the 30 year standard. He and his wife are very determined not to leave a home they have worked very hard to make their perfect. A picture of their home is given at the top of this article.
James Kay the Chairman of TRACE who lives in 21 Seymour Street recorded an identical experience. A council officer failed this property on the grounds that the internal decorations were substandard after visiting it in the midst of the renovation process. Renovations have now been completed fully at the owner’s expense. This property was scheduled for demolition under the previous options but is now not in the target zone. The new demarcation line for demolition has now been redrawn to end at the edge of number 19 - one property short of number 21.
A resident in Warrington Street spoke at the meeting and explained that he had received conflicting reports on whether his property had need of any structural work. As far as he was concerned it did not need that work. In a previous visit by council officials he had been told that minor settlement had occurred many years previously. Now it seems he has been told that his property needs major structural work. He refutes this but in any case cannot understand how it makes more sense to spend a lot more money knocking down rather than supporting him to improve his home if it does need any more work.
Many others spoke at the meeting against compulsory demolition and could not understand why it was necessary to knock down all these homes in the streets behind the main development area.
What do local residents think should happen instead of compulsory demolition?Local residents believe that people living in the streets behind Church Road shopping area who wish to stay in their homes, should be supported to do so and helped to improve their homes if they are in need of further work to achieve the 1985 Housing Act standard. That is why the petition calls upon Wirral Council to “support residents who want to stay in their own homes and improve them.”
Why should Wirral Council support local residents who want to stay in their homes rather than see them demolished?
§ Because no one should be forced from their homes against their wishes unless the only alternative is a very real community harm. Such harm has not yet even been adequately defined let alone proven.
§ Because the case has not been made yet that the improvements on Church Road depend on the wholesale clearance of streets behind. The developer (Lovell) who is being considered for this work has not been briefed yet to explore a renovation option for these streets. A Lovell senior representative told James Kay during the consultation process that demolition is the only option that the council is considering for the target areas.
§ Because even where structural problems exist they can be dealt with for much less than the cost of demolition. Most houses have received only a cursory examination and before a case is made - for example that they are structurally irreparable - more work should be done involving the residents concerned in making this assessment and considering the various options.
§ Because the Human Rights Act (s8) protects citizens to live peacefully in their homes and protected from arbitrary authority. This right can be overwhelmed under s1 of the Act if there is a compelling public interest in doing so. That ‘public interest’ case should be made and debated before the decision to demolish has to be confronted. Failure to do so before the renovation option is abandoned will leave the authority vulnerable to a successful challenge to the Inspector at the CPO stage and possibly to a legal challenge later.
§ Because demolition is not the only option. Demolition should only be used as a very last resort when all other alternatives have been exhausted. In most cases these alternatives have not even been tried. In other areas affected by HMRIs renovation has now been brought back on the agenda. This has now been done in Liverpool after resident reaction to demolition plans. In Preston imaginative renovations and redesigns have been implemented for much smaller and older terraced blocks than are evident in Tranmere. There is a practical alternative to demolition.
§ Because forcing residents out of their homes will damage community cohesion. Those who most want to stay include many of those who are most active in local community spirit and activity. They have demonstrated already by their campaigning how lively and constructive is the Tranmere community. This spirit should be nourished and encouraged but it is at risk of being soured and demoralised if the Council demonstrates that it is not prepared to keep the renovation option alive.
§ Because forcing owner-occupiers out of their home will worsen the ratio of owned to rented properties. The Council has committed itself to improve the tenure ratios in favour of more owner-occupiers. The current ration percentage is 62:38. After compulsory demolition that ratio will worsen.
§ Because it will effectively discriminate against the elderly. The people most cruelly affected by the plan to demolish properties are those over the age of 55 who even if they wished to do so, cannot take out another mortgage. Many of them will be forced either back into the rented sector or into substandard housing in other low value areas not in the NRA area. This is because they will not be able buy another property in the same condition as their own for the ‘market’ price that Wirral Council will be able to offer them. This older group of people are the backbone of the Tranmere Community and vital to its continuing identity and future cohesion. They are the ones who hold the community memories and will be a very important conduit to the past when the new urban village community takes shape.
§ Because it will worsen inequalities. Those least able to afford the new housing in Tranmere will include those owner-occupiers of all ages whose houses are demolished. They will also be pushed further down the housing ladder. They will be in a similar position to older residents. They will be replaced in Tranmere by those who can afford the entry-level costs – predicted by Lovell to be in the region of £135,000 for the 3 bedroomed properties they are planning for Church Road. Tranmere is at the moment one of the few areas on the Wirral where starter homes exist at prices that people can afford. The net effect of this change will be to widen and not narrow housing inequality in Tranmere.
§ Because it will be a great deal more expensive. Even if the existing owners were to get substantial grants and/or equity loans to make improvements it would still only cost a small portion of the demolition alternative. It is not at all certain that much will need to be spent on the properties where the owners want to stay. Most are adamant that they do not require much improvement and have not had other than cursory examinations by council officers.
This financial imbalance and lack of value for money is worth an extra paragraph. Even according to the papers submitted by the Housing and Regeneration department, the average spend needed to reach the 1985 standard on the target properties is under £30,000 per unit. This is about a third of the cost of demolition and rebuild. TRACE is now asking you “How can the renovation option be swept away at this stage in the face of such obvious cost improvements from a viable alternative?”
§ Because it is the right thing to do at this stage. It will bring local residents and Council officers together into a creative team committed to making a practical success of the improvement plan that the community wants and the area desperately needs.
What action is needed by Wirral Councillors?
You have the overwhelming support of the local residents for the suggested improvements on Church Road but not for compulsory demolition of resident’s homes in the area behind Church Road.
We urge you on behalf of residents in the Church Road Masterplan Area, to keep alive the renovation option where residents wish to stay. This will need a clear message from the Select Committee to the Council’s officers to work with the developers and with local residents to work out how that can be achieved on a block-by-block basis.
TRACE will continue to work with local Council officers and with staff from Tranmere Together to support and represent the views of local residents and to advocate their continued involvement in decisions about their properties
For more information on any of the above please contact
James Kay
TRACE
21 Seymour Street
Tranmere
0151 647 1903
07976 839 054
jameslkay@ntlworld.com
www.tranmereresidents.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment