23 June 2006
The Housing Market Renewal programme is aimed at regenerating rundown areas, through replacing or renewing poor housing. But it is now threatened by the loss of its champion John Prescott and a fightback against demolition. John Perry explains
When John Prescott lost his departmental responsibility in last month's reshuffle, it put an immediate question mark over policies that carried his moniker. Most significant of these is the Housing Market Renewal programme and the nine pathfinders it is funding, seven in the North and two in the Midlands.
As Communities and Local Government Secretary Ruth Kelly carries out a reappraisal of her new department's priorities, there are inevitable fears that a programme closely associated with her predecessor has lost its champion. Will it be downgraded or left to a slow death as the next Spending Review reshapes departmental priorities?
When Northern housing representatives met housing minister Yvette Cooper earlier this month to make their case for investment, they included Housing Market Renewal but gave a bigger priority to new affordable housing and their growth plans. They might have felt that this spoke more directly to the department's new priorities, but even so they risked damning the market renewal programme by praising it too faintly. Ministers need convincing that the programme is about much more than demolition, and that it is just as necessary now as it was before the upturn in the housing market.
There are plenty of voices arguing to the contrary, belonging to people who would be happy to see the market renewal programme go the same way as Prescott. In the past few months alone, we have seen veteran journalist Sir Simon Jenkins in the Guardian and the programme Tonight with Trevor McDonald both attacking the notion of demolishing older houses. The Tonight programme, like several others, focused on what could be done by throwing money at one particular house, ignoring the problems of the wider area.
Meanwhile, Jenkins refers regularly to 'Yvette Cooper's proposal to demolish 150,000 Midlands and north country terrace houses'. Apart from the exaggeration, of which more later, there is the turn of phrase, which evokes stone-built cottages in Wensleydale rather than pokey two-up, two-down terraces in Liverpool or Stoke-on-Trent.
The prime mover against demolition has been the pressure group Save, whose assessment (on its website) is that as many as 400,000 houses will come down in the pathfinder areas. To those anxious to get on the housing ladder in the south of England, or who have invested their savings in modernising a terraced house, these figures must seem to be a travesty of housing policy. But put them under closer scrutiny, and the argument crumbles.
For a start, there are still something like 2.5 million Victorian terraced houses in England. The vast majority of these form excellent homes or can be modernised with some modest investment. But some are obsolete. That is, they are either too small, too badly designed or in too poor condition to be satisfactorily improved. Or – and this is often the case in the pathfinder areas – there are simply too many houses of the same type, age and size in the same place. For example, in Stoke-on-Trent, more than half of the housing stock is Victorian, consisting mainly of small, back-of-pavement terraces.
Sometimes, this kind of housing can be transformed and given a new niche in the housing market. As part of the local pathfinder programme, Urban Splash has converted 108 terraced houses in Salford into trendy 'upside down' units. There were long queues when they went on sale in April and they are now sold out. But this is redevelopment in all but name – the terraces were totally hollowed out and the yards and back alleys bulldozed. It is a tremendous example of regeneration but its effect depends in part on the scarcity value. Doing this to thousands of houses simply isn't possible.
Opponents of demolition seem to forget that we do need to replace old houses at some point. The country currently replaces fewer than one in 1,000 houses each year – and most demolition is of tower blocks, not Victorian terraces. No-one – least of all the pathfinder agencies – is contemplating mass demolition. The aim must be selective renewal of the most difficult property, as part of the wider regeneration of poor neighbourhoods.
The other argument deployed by the critics is that local residents are up in arms against demolition plans. As Save says on its website: 'Householders are being forced out of their beloved homes following minimal and often misinformed consultations.' But the striking thing about many of the pathfinders is not the level of opposition, but the degree of support that they are obtaining for their renewal plans. Stoke and Hull provide two examples.
The Renew North Staffordshire pathfinder expects to replace just over 12,000 houses over 20 years. Although this might seem a lot, it also aims to refurbish or improve 63,000 houses and build 15,000 new ones. But there is no grand plan for demolition – the process is taking place at neighbourhood level, where master plans are being devised in conjunction with residents. One of the pathfinder's innovations is the appointment of 'residents' friends' in each area, answerable to the local Citizens Advice Bureau rather than to the council or the pathfinder. They help residents articulate their problems and give them independent advice. By putting unprecedented effort into involving residents, Renew is emerging with plans that have high proportions of local support – even from people whose houses might be demolished.
The Gateway pathfinder is more advanced with its renewal plans for some neighbourhoods in Hull – but still has support from residents. Houses have already been demolished, and local people are demanding faster replacement of the remaining boarded-up properties. Again, the pathfinder has used a variety of methods to find out local opinion and has high levels of support for what it is doing. It has adopted a 'charter', which sets out the promises made to local people. Residents engaged in the process have made a video showing their ambitions for their community. The level of support has convinced the local press, which is also calling for faster demolition of the worst houses.
The latest documentation on the pathfinders nationally – available on their websites or that of the Audit Commission – suggests that on current plans they will replace some 60,000 properties. Some further clearance might be planned in later phases, for which the pathfinders have yet to produce detailed plans. But it seems most unlikely that they will reach the total of 150,000 cited by Jenkins, much less the absurd maximum put forward by Save. And this is over a period of up to 15 years, including of course many thousands of unpopular postwar developments as well as the cherished 'north country terraces'. To put the figures in perspective, the pathfinders cover in total more than three-quarters of a million homes.
When the market renewal programme was challenged by the Commons Office of the Deputy Prime Minister select committee last year, the response from the then ODPM was pretty robust. It said it had a long-term commitment to the programme and was determined that the goals set for achievement by 2020 would be met.
It will be vital for the residents of the pathfinder areas that this commitment is sustained when the results of the next Spending Review are decided. All nine pathfinders are at the relatively early stages of long-term regeneration of some of the country's most difficult areas. It would be a travesty to scale back the programme when it has barely started.
The broader issue that arises from their work though, is one that hardly anybody wants to discuss. What are we actually going to do with those 2.5 million terraced houses – out of a total of more than 4 million Victorian homes, or one in five of the current stock? Of course, most of them still have a long potential life. They were built in the mid-nineteenth century and nearly all of them will make it through to the mid-twenty-first. But how much longer after that do we expect them to survive? The housing market renewal programme is intended to be a 'learning experience' of what to do with obsolete housing areas. Perhaps another 'Barker Report' is needed, to consider the problem of ageing housing in the same strategic way as Kate Barker examined the need for new homes.
John Perry is policy adviser to the Chartered Institute of Housing
PFjun2006
