“YOU SHALL NOT SIDE WITH GREAT AGAINST THE POWERLESS”
Briefing report to Syd Howarth MBE Chairman, and the Management Committee of Great Aycliffe Residents Association (GARA):
Cllr Martin Ashcroft, Cllr Derek Atkinson,Bill Curtis,
Cllr Bob Fleming,Barry Hutchinson, Cllr Ken Robson, Acorn Residents Association, WASPS (Simpasture)Residents Association, Neville Residents Association, Williamfield Residents Association
on the subject of the:
Western Area Regeneration Scheme (WARP) being proposed by Livin.
Copies to:
Phil Wilson MP
Great Aycliffe Town Council
Rt Hon Sajid David MP Secretary of State (HCLG)
by
Councillor Arun M Chandran
Secretary
Great Aycliffe Residents Association
88 Honister Place
Newton Aycliffe
DL5 7DN
tel 01325 313224
mob 07711 573043
email:
Published 20.3.2017
Livin the Social Housing Landlord (not for Profit) for this area, put a bid in to the Government with the view of doing a feasibility study for putting in a further bid to the Government for Funds for a regeneration scheme.
In August 2017, Livin appointed a Team at the Pioneering Care Partnership (PCP) to undertake the Consultation process. This project was funded by a grant of £284,000 from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG).
The aim was to finalise the exercise by April this year and present a masterplan to the back to the government and bid for funds for the Regeneration Scheme.
In the extensive consultation exercise, 3 options were given to residents and attempts were made to get responses from all residents on the estate. I was appointed a volunteer Champion together with others to assist the PCP Team with this process.
The six streets form part of the West Ward, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham
The estate comprises six streets and according to Livin has 571 Houses of which at least 50% are Home Owners,some private Landlords and the rest Livin Tennants.
The response rate from residents was low despite hardwork by the PCP team and champions.
At the conclusion of this exercise Livin has given their views as follows:
It had presented 3 options:
Option 1 -Improvement to existing homes. To do minimum option
• Landscaping and playground moved nearer to homes.
• Private gardens and parking.
• Work to existing houses which could include new windows and doors.
• A new centrally located village style centre to provide services and activities on the
doorstep. A new community building could be used for a wide array of different uses to
suit both the young and elderly.
• Improvements to landscaped areas, green spaces and play areas.
Why Livin have discounted this option:
Livin may be restricted on where a new community venue can be built due to the existing layout of the estate.
• We will not be able to access funding for this option.
• If owners are not willing to ‘buy-in’ to property improvement works, we may not be able
to do them.
• Private gardens and driveways are not possible within the current estate layout.
• New landscaping will not help to design out crime and anti-social behaviour.
• Residents told us they preferred options two and three
Option 2 -Property improvements and new build infill To do minimum option
Livin have looked at the potential of improving existing homes by changing their appearance, adding roofs, drives and private garden spaces. At the same time as improving existing properties, this option looked at building new homes on some open spaces alongside existing houses within the estate.
Why Livin have discounted this option:
Improving existing properties would require all owners to buy in to works to be able to improve the appearance of the whole estate. The costs of these works for each owner and landlord could be high without offering the advantages of modern homes.
• Without changing the layout of the estate, it would not be possible to provide drives for
every existing property due to a lack of space and access.
• Improving the appearance of existing properties would not provide the benefits of
modern new build homes such as improved energy efficiency and lower maintenance
costs.
• The type and size of new build properties on existing spaces would be limited by the
ability to fit them around existing homes.
• There is a risk that new build properties alongside existing homes would look mismatched
even after improvements to their appearance.
• It is unlikely that planning permission would be given for building new homes on much of
the designated green space within the estate.
Option 3 -The do more option
What this option includes:
• New estate layout and design.
• Mix of modern new build housing to meet local needs.
• Improved network of streets and public footpaths.
• New landscaped space.
• New and better located playgrounds.
• Central open space.
• Purpose built central community venue which works for all ages.
Why this is your preferred option and is what we will be basing the final masterplan on
Reasons:
• Significant demolition to create modern new homes to meet local demand and need.
Including starter homes, executive homes and homes for the elderly.
• Homes to be built to modern standards with landscaping, driveways and that meet space
standards.
• To create a better mix of homes for sale and rent including affordable options for the
young, old and families.
• Work could be phased over several years to minimise disruption to residents.
• Improvements could increase demand and attract more people to live here.
• Utilise existing space at the edge of the estate to create better links.
• Opportunity to design a purpose built and centrally located village style centre that would
include community buildings and small retail space.
Things to consider:
• All residents including owners and landlords need to be on-board.
• It may take many years to deliver.
• A lot of change and possible disruption for residents.
• Funding is not guaranteed.
------
During my conversations with the Livin/PCP team it became apparent that under Option 3 Livin are planning to reduce the number of Livin Tennancies by 100 on the estate.
Right from the outset of my involvement, first as a Livin Tennant now as a Home Owner, in my discussions I consistently pointed out that Livin needed to make clear exactly how Home Owners stand and Private Landlords with regard to their Freehold Properties and the financial implications. Last week I resigned as a Champion on the project because Livin had failed to provide any information on this matter. Meanwhile I was receiving emails like the one below and being stopped in the street by residents
Dear Mr Chandran
I am writing this email to you having just been contacted by my 63 year old father who lives in Langdale Place in Newton Aycliffe. He is a private homeowner at this address and has been for nearly 40 years.
He was in a state of great distress having just attended a ‘drop in session’ where he found out that Livin intend to demolish his house in order to ‘regenerate’ his local area.
I quickly consulted their website and found out this was indeed the case.
To say that my father was upset is an understatement. I myself believe it to be a highly suspect way to tell a man who has worked hard all his life to be a homeowner that Livin will be, at some point, over the next 14 years be making him homeless...
He is not a Livin tenant thus feels he will not receive any of the perceived benefits of living in the newly ‘regenerated’ area as he will no longer be able to afford to live there.
He currently owns a 3 bedroom house with a large garden, conservatory extension and detached garage. When querying, at Livin’s big reveal, whether he would be given a like for like replacement he was told ‘no’.
When he was consulted as to whether he wanted his local area to improve, at no point did he think this meant he would be left with no house at the end of it. He feel betrayed and let down.
If you are a Livin tenant in the area, I would imagine that this regeneration project is highly welcome - say ‘yes’ and get a shiny new house with no strings attached. However, I am not entirely sure that Livin’s proposal is enticing to private owners like my father who (as I stated earlier) will now be left with no home at the end of this process. This is due the fact that what Livin pay him for the house they will be demolishing will not meet the full cost of a new house in the area.
I am contacting you in both your capacity as a councillor in the Ward and a named ‘community champion’ for the project.
I look forward with great interest and an open mind to your thoughts on this matter.
Regards
On my resigning as a Champion I sent the following email
XXXXXXXX,
Firstly, thank you very much for the information and to the role you Karen, Emily and others have played so far. This email is directed at Livin not yourselves.
Up to this time, I have sought to maintain a studied neutrality in order to try to assist with the Consultation exercise. Get people involved both Tennants and Home Owners. Indeed even suggesting how option 3 looked attractive subject to Home Owners not losing out.
It is a fact that cannot be disputed, that Option 3 cannot be supported nor chosen by people as an option, who own their own home, until and unless Livin are able to say what precisely it will do to with them.
1. Provide like for like replacement
2. Provide a package which a) protects the value of the Home Owners share of the property
and Livin's share b) protects the Home Owner from any costs whatsoever ie no re
mortgage, no rent
3. Many people bought their homes on the basis having no more rent or mortgage to pay
and took retirement etc on that basis, and some improved their houses. They could not
now be in a position to be moved out, be provided with a like for like replacement, and
then afford to pay rent or a mortgage where there plans never envisaged it for the rest of
their lives.
4. If Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)further down the line was used it would not enable
people to buy like for like replacement now where they live or indeed most other parts
of the Town. It would rob people of what they worked and paid for most of their lives,
and in many cases cause deliberate homelessness and destitution.
5. If livin were to say provide like for like replacement, but only put a charge on the property
to recover their value on resale that would be a significant progressive move, but it could
mean Livin not getting their share of the value of the property for up to 30 years or more.
So any government funding would need to cover that funding gap on Livin's accounts, and
not burden existing Home Owners with the cost and debt..
6. I have been in talks with Solicitors and Chartered Surveyors and believe we Home Owners
can oppose successfully any attempt at CPO. The Regeneration Area (six streets) has about
571 properties of which 50% are Home Owners. Looking at Option 3 the new estate
would be dealing with 285 Home Owners and 186 Tennants or others as Livin intend to
reduce Tennants by 100 in the circumstances Option 3 would not get approval by a
Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State.
7. Option 3 could be dropped by Livin but that is down to them, and what Agenda they have.
I am neither naive nor stupid not to believe that Livin have their own objectives in mind,
and I have no issue with that, but failure to provide any clairity to Home Owners on
Option 3 leaves people to draw their own conclusions. Saying it might not happen till 10
or 15 years down the line is not a good enough excuse for Home Owners and the
potential for Blight because of the threat underlining CPO, on house sales or home
improvements.
8. I will await further information from yourself (Livin) on the issue re Home Owners on
Option 3. I think 14 days is sufficient, after that time, as Secretary of the Great Aycliffe
Residents Association, having already discussed this with my Management Committee we
will convene a Special Public Meeting and invite Home Owners and Tennants and Livin.
I suspect that losing 100 Livin Tennants from the estate will also cause interest.
I feel that at this point in time, to maintain the integrity of my position, as a Home Owner and a Local Ward Councillor, that I must offer my Resignation as a Livin/ PCP Champion, I do so reluctantly, but in my opinion I have no other choice. It is up to Livin/PCP to accept but likewise, I do not see your not accepting, because of a possible conflict of interest from your point of view. I can no longer accept or recommend Option 3 as it stands nor will any home owners in my opinion.
regards
Councillor Arun M Chandran
I have made extensive enquiries regarding regeneration schemes the length and breadth of the country. Regrettably, in every case I have found that: the Social Land Lord or Council starts off with a scheme, consults and promises complete like for like replacement to get consents, then submits the scheme to HCLG Dept for Funds and Compulsory Purchase powers, then reneges on the promises and uses CPO powers to force out Home Owners and basically appropriate their Freehold.
I illustrate just 2 examples :
- 20.9.2016 ……………….AYLESBURY LONDON
In August 2013, the national media got very excited about what was apparently central London’s last home on the market for less than £100,000. A ground-floor studio flat in Brixton was being sold for £99,500. It was in such a shocking state that even the estate agent described it as “horrendous”. It had just 56 years left on the lease but buyers were lining up, seeing a bargain with lots of potential.
What went unreported, however, was that just a mile down the road, Southwark council had been snapping up even bigger bargains by the hundred.
The Aylesbury in Camberwell is a vast estate of about 2,700 homes, two miles from the Houses of Parliament. For more than a decade, it has been the subject of plans for a regeneration project, which is now under way. In order to move forward with the scheme, which involves demolition of the existing buildings, the council had to buy out the residents who had previously bought their homes from the council under the right-to-buy policy.
Right to buy allowed people to move into or stay in their area. Regeneration offers a price compelling them to move out
Details of the amounts paid by Southwark for these homes were obtained by campaigners under the Freedom of Information Act. In some cases, they show very low offers being made and accepted under the threat of compulsory purchase.
In September 2012, for example, Southwark council paid one leaseholder on the Aylesbury estate £75,000 for a large, 47 sq m, one-bedroom flat. In 2014, the council paid £147,500 for a four-bedroom, 97 sq m maisonette. To put this in some kind of context, by January 2013, the average house price in London had hit £400,000.
On the neighbouring Heygate estate, Southwark council paid an average of £107,000 for a two-bedroom flat. Its purchases on that estate started in 2004, but as late as 2011 the council was still paying £115,000 for a two-bed flat there.
Neither is it just in Southwark where councils have been forcing sales at low prices. According to Jasmin Parsons, a leaseholder at the West Hendon estate in Barnet, some leaseholders were offered just £90,000 for a one-bed flat and £130,000 for a two-bed maisonette when the council applied for the first in a series of compulsory purchase orders.
This offer was later increased after the leaseholders employed a surveyor to act on their behalf, but still fell far short of the amount required to buy an equivalent home.
Of course, some leaseholders on council estates who bought their property directly from the council would have benefited from the right-to-buy discount. Others, who had bought their property off another leaseholder, would not. But the issue is that right to buy offered a price which allowed them to move into or stay in their area. Estate regeneration has offered a price that compels them to move out.
Last week, however, the picture changed dramatically, when Sajid Javid, the secretary of state for communities and local government, refused to allow the compulsory purchase of flats on the latest phase of the Aylesbury estate’s redevelopment, citing concerns about the way Southwark council was dealing with leaseholders.
Leaving aside the obvious inequity, for many residents these offers are simply unrealistic. At West Hendon, 85-year-old Adelaide Adams was forced to sell her home for £175,000. An equivalent home on the “regenerated” estate would be £407,000, with service charges of over £2,000 a year. To her it was obvious that, after having spent 30 years on the estate, she was no longer welcome.