The Girnhill estate has become an in-humane hell created by WMDC. The story goes back 10 years when houses were first started being boarded up after tenants left. It has taken many years of hard work by WMDC to create “HELL”.
The residents live in daily fear of a lack of police and an increase in vandalism that includes arson of homes and verbal abuse. The trend is so bad that houses are now burnt by yobs so that they can go back over the coming weeks to strip the metals from the buildings.
Polatics is a big issue here as one party instigated the demise and stopped another trying to offer a fair deal.
The residents left now have another enemy, a man called Bob. This man has been employed by WMDC to talk to individual residents and try and con them out of their homes. What he does is offer an under market price for homes with a threat of CPO (compulsory purchase order). For example a home worth £170k that could be demolished and 3 £125k homes built if being valued at between £60 and £70k. You can not buy a home for this in Featherstone. The help WMDC offer is a PACKAGE (bag of crap). They will take an equity stake for your home that will be repaid when you move. This is capped. So to accept and move out you have an equity stake and a debt to pay. Pretty crap when you have worked all your life and paid your mortgage off with a view to seeing your last days being in comfort.
The story continues, this was my friends home;
18th feb News on the Girnhill front. A lot of activity of late in the form of picture taking, clip board people walking around. Rumours of CPO's being issued in the near future. Anyone else got any news?
18th feb Does anyone know if their is any truth in what people are saying.... That verner street is to be demolished as well as the pit houses?
18th feb Havn't heard about that one before.
18th feb That's what I have been told by 2 council workers, that is why council tennants are finding it difficult to get any repairs done !!!
19th feb According to the WDH website Verner street is on the improvement schedule for 2010 http://www.wdh.co.uk/living/improvements/area3/Pages/default.aspx
23rd feb Well it looks as if someone else is leaving the estate today or should I say been driven off the estate by the council. I know another 3 are considering it, I just hope they get a fair deal
23rd feb Was talking to someone the other day who are thinking about leaving, he's not in the best of health anymore, and i think he's lost the will to fight, its these people who are the most vulnerable,WMDC should hang their heads in shame, they're no better than the dictatorships in some of the third world countries, completely bloody heartless
23rd feb what would be the logic in knocking down Verner Street. The house are approx 30 years old, I just can't see anybody knocking these houses down. I have been informed by someone that they are up for re-wiring and new windows.
were would it stop? Priory Rd houses are older, Huntwick estate is older, I don't think they will be demolished.
23rd feb i hope they dont knock anymore house down that means more rehousing and that means my daughter has no chance of getitng a house. shes married with a 9 month old living with her hubby and his mum in a 2 bed house
23rd feb As I’ve said before on the old forum I don’t know how Bob Hall and Janet Howley can do a job which involves stealing peoples homes and wrecking their lives, I know I couldn’t do it. As far as I’m aware neither John Trickett or Featherstone labour councillor Maureen King has done anything to help the residents unless anyone knows otherwise ??
23rd feb i love all your pasion. now its time to help.
many people will be aware of a lot more than is at the moment posted and i for one am grudged that the original post was wiped. that has to be left behind. the following is what i have salvaged. i hope from here on we all can add on. there are developements that i will add after. my reason is another plot has brought a grteat situation to be in.
23rd feb Does anyone know how many houses were built on the estate in the begining?
cos the council say there is room to build 250 there .
174 houses according to an old ordinance survey map
only one point i can add. labour and WMDC ignore our voices at there peril. mine alone and probably others will ram this up them for years to come until our dying breath. i would not like to one of them walking down our streets!!!
There’s one thing for certain, the people who applied for CPO and their henchmen will be nowhere near the estate when things really kick off. I for one will be there along with many others, it makes you wonder how the councils puppets can do a job which involves evicting pensioners I know I couldn’t do it but then again there’s no one pulling my strings. I suppose one consolation is that Featherstone has an independent council because if they had a labour one the residents would have no chance of a satisfactory solution
23rd feb Estate history- back in 2000 the council owned 52 houses, a private landlord (chestram property) owned 78 and 48 were owned by owner occupiers. The council began a policy of not re letting any houses which became vacant despite people wanting to rent them, this was the reason and the start of the decline of the estate, the empty shuttered up houses attracted anti social behaviour and arson attacks.
Back in 2002 a resident spoke to councillor Graham Isherwood about the councils plans and he replied “all the estate wants flattening”. Obviously the empty arson attacked houses had a detrimental effect on the other houses in financial terms and making the estate undesirable for new chestram tenants. Chestram talked to the council for at least a year about buying the empty council houses to redevelop but the council weren’t interested so chestram stopped doing maintenance on their properties and their tenants started leaving, the tenants were given a grant to move into rented council homes off of the estate. The estate also received part of a 5 million pound government grant, where did that money go ??.
In 2003 chestram sold their homes to Leeds London ltd who started having talks with the council regarding re development. The owner occupiers had an individual meeting at wmdc housing offices and were told their homes were going to be modernised with new boundary walls, roofs etc. On 19th June 2003 the resident received a letter from the council saying “We want to assure you NO ONE WILL BE WORSE OFF by any proposals that come forward” this letter was signed by David Jennison and Janet Howley.
In July 2003 all the empty houses had their door and window screening removed, these were on hire to the council and paid for by tax payers. A new type of screening was then fitted (more money wasted) that were not supposed to be able to be removed once fitted but the vandals seemed to get in a lot quicker than before. The first lot of demolition started on vacant properties
In February 2004 a report to the cabinet was produced to endorse the use of compulsory purchase if needed. Janet Howley sent a letter saying “we WOULD NOT use these compulsory purchase powers on individual owner occupiers”. The council also started buying the owner occupied homes (tax payers money), the home owners sold their homes for a pittance because they were fed up in living on the declining estate
In 2005 Leeds London and Featherstone independent councillors struck a deal with Taylor Woodrow (developer) who agreed to build and pay for a new house for the owner occupiers (like for like), the council were furious about this and quickly pulled the plug by threatening to compulsory purchase all Leeds London properties. Wmdc (Ann Pittard) sent another letter to the owner occupiers saying “we have NO intention of using cpo powers on individual owners”. A wmdc consultation with the home owners took place, 39% of residents opted to stay in their own home, 11% opted for new for old (like for like), and 19% opted to move into a refurbished house.
2006 the council bought Leeds London’s houses
2007 council offered some options, option 1- valuation of property (based on the value of a house in a slum area, not market value, as low as £30,000) plus a grant of £15,000 and a loan of £35,000. Option 2 - all of option 1 and BUY a new house on the estate. Option 3 - all of option 1 plus buy a percentage of a new house and pay rent and have a chance to buy a bigger percentage later. Option 4 - all of option 1 but buy a fixed percentage of a new home and no opportunity to buy a bigger %. Option 5 - valuation of your home plus 10% and rent a house on the estate. Many letters were then sent by Janet Howley trying to tempt residents into option 1, did you forget the “no one will be worse off” bit Janet ??. November 2007 letter was Janet Howley’s fictional reasons why the council couldn’t offer like for like (unlike the independents) and seemed to care more about how the developers profit would be affected than the residents loss of a home
2008 letter from J Howley, A number of developers have been short listed to redevelop the estate and will be appointed within 4 months, the remaining properties on the estate WILL BE compulsory purchased but the council will offer advise and support. The letter then tries to push option 1 again and says this option can be withdrawn at any time (scare tactics)
24 feb
23rd feb I feel this may be the longest post on this forum anyway here goes
1. SUBJECT: GIRNHILL LANE ESTATE REGENERATION - PROPOSALS
FOR A COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
2. PURPOSE OF REPORT
2.1 To update Cabinet Members on the current situation at Girnhill Lane Estate,
Featherstone. There is a confidential financial report that Members need to
consider alongside this report detailing the corporate financial implications
of proceeding with the recommendations.
2.2
To seek the authority from Cabinet Members to make a Compulsory
Purchase Order (CPO). The report describes why this is required and
details:
• The preferred option for the area
• How the proposals contribute to the economic, social and
environmental well being of the area; and
• Plans for delivering the project.
Agenda Page 13 Agenda Item No 7
3. RECOMMENDATION (S)
3.1 Resolve to make a Compulsory Purchase Order under section 226 (1) (a) of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to acquire all interests in the land
described in Section 5 of this report and shown edged in red on the plan in
Appendix 1.
3.2 Authorise the Service Director (Legal and Democratic Services) to make a
CPO order and submit to the Secretary of State for confirmation.
3.3 Authorise the Service Director (Housing and Public Protection) to continue
negotiations with affected owners, where possible, to acquire all relevant
properties within the Girnhill Estate (Shown by the boundary on Appendix
1).
4. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION (S)
4.1 To enable the Council to proceed with a programme of regeneration and
redevelopment that meets the immediate and future needs of the Girnhill
Lane Estate and the neighbouring communities in Featherstone.
5. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
5.1 The Girnhill Lane Estate was built by the National Coal Board (NCB) in the
late 1940s to house miners and their families who worked in the local
collieries. The properties consist of semi detached and blocks of 4
properties and are constructed from pre-cast reinforced concrete (PRCs).
5.2 The properties were designated defective under the Housing Defects Act
1984, as they are not traditionally built and have inherent defects, which
cannot be remedied without totally rebuilding the house. Some owneroccupiers
took advantage of grant aid during the 1980s to rebuild their
homes using the available Reinstatement Grant.
5.3 Of the original 174 properties, only 41 remain occupied (35 owned and 6
tenanted). Residents are suffering from very poor housing and
environmental conditions and low house prices compared to adjacent
streets. Anti-social behaviour, arson, fly tipping, drug misuse and vandalism
are now common occurrences on the estate and present a real health and
safety risk to the remaining residents. Both the Police and Fire Services
have expressed significant concerns for the health and safety of remaining
residents, as well as highlighting the costs to themselves for the additional
resources that management of the conditions has required. Their view is
that the only long term solution for the Estate is the speedy demolition of
the remaining properties.
Agenda Page 14
5.4 Housing on the estate has suffered from increasing deterioration of both
internal and external fabric and increased levels of abandonment over the
past decade. Following the collapse of the traditional industries in the area,
the demand for stock has fallen resulting in increasing vacant dwellings and
property values falling. Although house prices in the area have risen in
recent years they still lag behind prices for the rest of the district.
5.5 On the 23 March 2007 the Council was able to purchase a further 72
houses with funding secured through English Partnerships. Without this
funding, the project would have undoubtedly stalled, and the acquisition of
these properties was seen as critical to progressing the regeneration
process.
5.6 This leaves the current tenureship details as follows:
Council owned properties 139 (133 properties are
empty, 6 are tenanted and 76
have been demolished)
Owner-occupied properties 35
5.7 In addition to the above mentioned residential properties, the draft CPO
Schedule includes a service sub-station, annexed garages and any other
interests owned by the Council. It is possible that there may be further
interests which are currently unknown. Cabinet should note that there is an
area of land adjacent to 64 Girnhill Street that currently remains in the
ownership of the Coal Board. This will be included in the CPO along with
any way leaves, ground leases and leasehold titles where the Council
already owns the freehold estate
5.8 The Council has worked with HOME Housing Association to take on the
management responsibility for the 4 tenanted properties acquired from the
previous landlord. The detailed arrangements are contained within a formal
Management Agreement. This is for an initial period of 3 years. In addition,
2 former Wakefield Council tenancies remain, as they were not subject to
the stock transfer to Wakefield and District Housing (WDH). The
management of these tenancies is being undertaken through WDH. All
tenants have been consulted on the proposed regeneration and are
supportive of the process.
5.9 In accordance with good practice the Council will continue to negotiate with
the remaining owners and offer a package of relocation assistance (subject
to available funding) to enable them to move off the estate.
Agenda Page 15
THE NEED FOR INTERVENTION BY CPO
5.10 Even though negotiations are still ongoing with the remaining owners it is
considered unlikely that the remaining properties and land will be acquired
by agreement and indeed some owners have intimated that they are waiting
for CPO action to legally clarify the situation. A CPO will therefore be
necessary to assemble the site so that a comprehensive regeneration
programme on the Estate can be realised.
5.11 The Council is the Local Authority for the area in which the Order Land is
situated. The CPO will be made pursuant to Section 226(1)(a) of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 99 of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Council has the power to acquire
compulsorily the Order Land if it thinks that the acquisition will facilitate the
carrying out of development, re-development or improvement on the Order
Land, in this case “the Scheme”, and it also thinks that the Scheme is likely
to contribute to the achievement of the promotion of the improvement of the
economic, social and environmental well-being of the area. It is considered
that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the CPO.
5.12 Furthermore, Central Government guidance makes clear that a local
authority should only use its compulsory purchase powers if it is satisfied
that there is a compelling case in the public interest. In considering this
issue, the Council must be mindful of the interference that the CPO will
have on the human rights of the affected parties and it must seek to ensure
that any such interference is the result of a necessary and proportionate
measure.
5.13 This project forms part of the wider regeneration for the Featherstone area,
and links into the overall Master plan. The redevelopment of the Girnhill
Estate is seen as pivotal to “kick-starting” the long term recommendations
for the town centre and thus there is a real need to ensure that the
replacement housing meets a wider range of housing need than is currently
offered.
5.14 SOCIAL WELL BEING
Demolition of the estate will deal with the clearance of defective housing
and stem the problem of abandonment and the subsequent problems of
crime and anti-social behaviour associated with empty properties. This
along with the redevelopment of the estate with modern properties with
protected open spaces will create a safer neighbourhood and will reduce
crime and fear of crime and anti social behaviour. The outcome will be a
more attractive environment, offering a better variety of housing. This will
Agenda Page 16
help to increase residents’ commitment to the area and its well being. The
redevelopment aims to introduce new properties that meet a very high
standard of design and energy efficiency, bringing added benefits to its
residents.
5.15 ECONOMIC WELL BEING
The scheme will improve the economic prospects of Featherstone by
removing an area of dereliction close to the town centre. The new housing
will help to create confidence in the housing market in and around
Featherstone, and help to ensure that homes in the local area appreciate in
value, providing local residents with worthwhile assets. It is envisaged that
the investment in new and improved housing will prevent a further loss of
population from the area, contributing to the viability of local shops and
amenities. It has been recognised through ongoing Masterplanning for
Featherstone that a failure to redress the issues within the Girnhill Estate
poses a real threat to the rest of the settlement. Moreover, regeneration of
the Estate will act as a catalyst for assisting the regeneration of the town
centre.
5.16 To ensure the realisation of the type of high quality, comprehensive and
sustainable development required for the estate, the whole identified area
will need to be redeveloped. There are 28 reinstated properties that remain
on the estate (the position of the remaining properties and those that are
reinstated are highlighted at appendix 2). To allow the comprehensive
redevelopment and assembly of the site these must be included within the
CPO Order for the following reasons:
1. The reinstated properties are spread across the estate and excluding
them from the CPO would effectively not permit the wholesale
redevelopment of the estate.
2. The proposal for the redevelopment includes for the existing road
layout to be redesigned, leaving the reinstated properties would not
allow for this.
3. Indicative costings in 2005 were obtained for the refurbishment of the
adjoining empty properties. This was in excess of £90,000 and on
this basis it would be uneconomical to pursue this option. Moreover,
following community feedback indicated that the community would
prefer a wholesale redevelopment option, this was not pursued.
5.17 ENVIRONMENTAL WELL BEING
The redevelopment and regeneration scheme will greatly improve the
quality of the environment in the estate by removing poorly maintained and
vandalised buildings and providing new homes in an improved environment.
Agenda Page 17
Redevelopment will also bring added benefits to newer housing that is
located nearby, which has also been affected by issues on the Estate.
6. OPTIONS APPRAISAL
6.1 It is the Council’s view that in order to deliver a successful programme of
regeneration on the Girnhill Lane Estate, Featherstone then it is essential
that all the freehold interests are acquired. The Council is therefore faced
with 2 options.
6.2 Option 1 – Compulsory Purchase Order
Acquire all the freehold interests through the use of a Compulsory Purchase
Order under the powers conferred by the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, Section 226 (1)(a) in respect of the land/properties.
6.3 Option 2 – Do Nothing
Cabinet gave prior approval to negotiate the purchase of the properties on
the estate for demolition and redevelopment in February 2004. To continue
this process and ensure that it is not prolonged any longer than necessary it
is essential that a CPO be pursued. Active strategies to manage conditions
on the Estate are not proving to be wholly effective.
6.4 Redevelopment Vision
The proposed redevelopment of the Girnhill Lane Estate is driven by a
number of strategic objectives both at a local and national level. The
Preferred Developer will contribute to neighbourhood sustainability and
regeneration of the area and deliver a high standard, well-designed
residential development, as detailed within the Design Brief.
6.5 Quality will be an important aspect of the scheme, achieving a high ‘building
for life’ score, secure by design accreditation and meeting ‘Life Time Home’
standards, through Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) or other
methods.
Agenda Page 18
6.6 A priority for the redevelopment scheme will be an appropriate mix of
housing types for sale, to maintain a sustainable community. The
introduction of affordable housing will directly contribute to meeting local
housing need, and also support the direction outlined within the Housing
Green Paper 2007. In addition, the Council is committed to protecting the
environment by cutting carbon emissions, and investigating the use of
renewable energy sources. In addition, the developer will be required to
achieve a minimum of level 3 on the Code for Sustainable Homes, and
where possible achieve level 4.
7. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The proposals support the key priorities of the Draft Regional Spatial
Strategy and subsequent Panel Report, the Council’s Community Strategy,
Housing Strategy, Economic Regeneration Strategy and the LDF Core
Strategy Preferred Options Report. The proposals are also in line with
current Unitary Development Plan Housing Policies. It is proposed that the
site will also be included referenced within the Site Specific Development
Planning Document.
7.2 The proposals will make Girnhill the Estate of choice to live and invest in
and will provide the neighbourhood with a range of quality property types of
varying sizes with the added benefits of improved security and energy
efficiency features, off road parking and disabled access.
7.3 There is expected to be an increase in the level of owner occupation across
the neighbourhood and an increase in actual occupation removing the
impact of empty properties.
7.4 The redevelopment will have a positive impact on house prices increasing
resident equity bringing forward private gardens and parking for residential
properties, an enhanced security conscious public realm through the
provision of improved linkage with adjacent neighbourhoods with traffic
calming measures.
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Right to a Home.
7.5 It is acknowledged that the making of a compulsory purchase order will
amount to an interference with Article 8 of the European Convention of
Human Rights (ECHR) (which provides that every person is entitled to
respect for his home and private life). However, that interference will be
justified if the action is proportionate and in accordance with the law.
Agenda Page 19
7.6 Relocation arrangements, subject to available resources, will ensure that
the owner-occupiers have access to more than the legal minimum
compensation. This will in turn provide owner-occupiers with the
opportunity to remain in owner-occupation.
7.7 Tenants residing on the estate will also have access to suitable alternative
accommodation.
The Right to a property
7.8 It is acknowledged that the compulsory acquisition of the Girnhill Estate will
amount to an interference with Article 1 of the First Protocol (which provides
that every natural or legal person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions). However, that interference will be justified if it is in
accordance with the law.
7.9 All property owners will have the opportunity to move into a new home on
the proposed development with a package of support from the Council,
subject to available funding. This support will allow owners to access a
property with a minimal financial burden. In addition, the Council will
ensure that professional advice is made available to all affected residents.
8. ENGAGEMENT
8.1 Extensive consultation has been undertaken with residents to identify local
wishes. A Steering Group which includes residents, Elected Members and
Officers has been reconvened to steer the project through the next stages.
8.2 Engagement with the wider community has also been undertaken to identify
concerns and to provide more detailed information about the proposed
regeneration for the Estate, its links to nearby residents and aspirations in
respect of housing and public open space.
8.3 The Council will work with a Registered Social Landlord to allow all the
remaining tenants to move into appropriate accommodation either on the
new development or in the neighbouring areas. The tenants have been
consulted and advised on the options that are available to them.
8.4 The local community will be involved in the next stage of the project which
will look to appoint a developer partner to identify regeneration proposals
for the Estate.
Agenda Page 20
9. CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
9.1 The financial implications of making a CPO are set out in a separate report.
9.2 In light of the major regeneration benefits that will accrue from the
comprehensive redevelopment of the site, it is considered that the proposed
compulsory acquisition of these properties in the area is a necessary and
proportionate measure in the public interest.
9.3 The making of a CPO would be in the public interest because:
• Without the clearance and redevelopment of the Girnhill Estate, the
area will continue to decline creating an isolated area blighted by
poor living conditions, high levels of crime and high levels of poverty.
• The local community recognises the need to regenerate the Estate.
• Those residents who remain in the area and new residents will
benefit from a safer, cleaner, more energy efficient house and a well
planned, well maintained environment.
• An increase in the number of economically active households in the
area will generate benefits for local businesses.
• Local Authority tenants will be offered assistance with re-housing into
suitable accommodation.
Service Director: Ann Pittard, Service Director,
Housing and Public Protection
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 2TX
Telephone No: 01924 306665
Fax No: 01924 305803
E-mail address:
apittard@wakefield.govContact Officer: Bob Hall, Programmes and Partnerships Manager
Housing and Public Protection
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 2TX
below is a letter sent to residents. click on it to enlarge.
