Re: Types of Damp Proof Course

[Anonymous]

Not quite sure who or what you are NOBBY but your talking out of your backside Im afraid.

Unfortunately its the likes of you that drive the likes of GRC away from sites like this.

GRC, like myself have only ever tried to give sound advice on this site and todate ive not made a penny so Im not trying to sell anything and neither is GRC.

PC

 

[Anonymous]

PC

Many thanks for that well considered, constructive and informative reply.

OK - I am a damp dumbo and talk out of my backside - but can you spare a few moments to make a reply please - because I think that this thread may have some merit (but you have to read deep to find it).

Rising Damp is:-

A. Rare - a thing elaborated by unscrupulous damp salespersons and can normally be eradicated by correcting failures such as leaking gutters etc. (the PPUK view that has been held for some time - or am I missing something?).

B. Does not exist - just look at those properties built on bridges etc. (a view proposed by Knorad, but dismissed by many of you 'experts' as a view held by some sort of nutter).

C. Exists in 82% of period properties (a view proposed by GRC - and seemingly condoned by the rest of you 'experts') but (sic) "Severe rising damp is NOT common and where it is don't bother to rely on injection - it is highly unlikely to work in those dituations".

So where do you sit PC? Which scenario do you think is appropriate, or have you another view. Have we all got 'it' but do not need to worry?

If the likes of me drive people like GRC away from PPUK then so be it - he has not posted in the last year anyway - and his posts in this thread are rambling and (to me) scaremongering - maybe ok for clever people like you - but simple people like me need simple replies. Get the picture?

Nobby, best pal of PD.

 

[Anonymous]

HI Nobby,

Where did I say that 82% of period properties have rising damp?? What I actually said was that in an investigation in Cardiff in relation to the Cardiff barrier BRE's investigation found that 82% of the properties they looked at had rising damp to a greater or lesser extent. This was not my observation but BRE's. FACT - published - not a "view"!

The other stuff I posted on my findings was for interest in relation to the number of salt contaminated materials I receive - FACT. Why on earth that should be scaremongering beats me! Paranoia?

With respect to the people on PPUK, they are people that love and live in Period Properties and as such they may be interested in potential actual problems. I see that you are now their self appointed spokesperson -"the PPUK view that has been held for some time" Hmm! I wonder what the others have to say.

"maybe ok for clever people like you - but simple people like me need simple replies" - try a dictionary or perhaps start a seperate section for simple people who have problems with words of more that one syllable?

And why all the "views"!! Views are not supportable facts. Some people are of the view that the moon is made of green cheese and the world is flat - do you subscribe to these "views"?

"I am a damp dumbo and talk out of my backside" Yup, your probably right - out of the mouths of babes and all that.

So now that you publicly admit you are a "dumbo" and talk#####why post? Your credibility on any contribution has gone down the pan, so to speak!

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, I agree about Graham – I think the last time he posted was about a year ago, possibly the time he thought he’d while away a Sunday afternoon being patronising to me. Not exactly a regular contributor these days. Maybe that’s because at times the received wisdom can be challenged!

Well, I may too be talking out of my backside, but then even the ‘experts’ who charge homeowners cash for their services can’t agree - and I include the ‘experts’ who diagnosed the damp in my own home. People like Matt – who I think can be called an expert – apparently doesn’t agree with all that people like Graham have to say about damp. The treatments are frequently more damaging to historic buildings than the initial perceived problem too. And I still wouldn’t allow anyone as vile as PD in my home – I do actually have copies of some of the obscene stuff (literally) he posted here about me, although removed by Simon I still am very aware of his stated aim of trying to scare me off this site. Takes more than the likes of him to scare me. But I think I’d be very wary of employing him! If I wanted damp and timber diagnosis and treatment in a historic building I think, having read Matt’s posts here over a long time, I know where I’d go.

However - here’s something to chew on. I managed to miss Tonight with Trevor MacDonald on Friday. That’s a pity as I gather me mate Adam from SAVE was on, as part of another expose of the whole dreadful Pathfinder programme. As he managed to miss it too neither of us know in detail what it was about. See however my other posts about the Darwen Inquiry. And he’s one I pretty much reckon has a great deal of expertise and a heap of qualifications and whose opinions I value too.

It must have hit a nerve though, as before it was even broadcast the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had written a statement rubbishing it. As with the nonsense written by the ODPM when the SAVE Pathfinder report was published – again, before they had even read it they had declared it to be ’scaremongering’ and wrong. Hmmmm. I’m still waiting for a reply to an e-mail I sent putting the record straight. Undaunted, I’ll be sending another this morning, again raising issues with the latest statement.

If you all read the link below, you’ll se that one of the reasons given for the demolition of the Welsh Streets in Liverpool is yes, our old pal RISING DAMP. .

(Lack of foundations is another previously given, although as that possibly includes most housing stock built pre 20th century maybe we should all have our homes compulsorily purchased and razed to the ground as a cure. The twaddle about space too – knock two together maybe? And some of these homes aren’t as tiny as the press release is making out! Anyhow – a large number of home owners don’t want huge houses. But I digress).

So – RISING DAMP - it’s a reason why homes are to be bulldozed.

Right then - here’s a challenge to all you experts who know about Rising Damp. Is it a reason to demolish these homes? How about writing or phoning the ODPM (see contact link on the top of the ODPM page) and stating that you are all experts and that you make a living from assessing and curing and controlling damp. How about offering to go

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, I agree about Graham – I think the last time he posted was about a year ago, possibly the time he thought he’d while away a Sunday afternoon being patronising to me. Not exactly a regular contributor these days. Maybe that’s because at times the received wisdom can be challenged!

Well, I may too be talking out of my backside, but then even the ‘experts’ who charge homeowners cash for their services can’t agree - and I include the ‘experts’ who diagnosed the damp in my own home. People like Matt – who I think can be called an expert – apparently doesn’t agree with all that people like Graham have to say about damp. The treatments are frequently more damaging to historic buildings than the initial perceived problem too. And I still wouldn’t allow anyone as vile as PD in my home – I do actually have copies of some of the obscene stuff (literally) he posted here about me, although removed by Simon I still am very aware of his stated aim of trying to scare me off this site. Takes more than the likes of him to scare me. But I think I’d be very wary of employing him! If I wanted damp and timber diagnosis and treatment in a historic building I think, having read Matt’s posts here over a long time, I know where I’d go.

However - here’s something to chew on. I managed to miss Tonight with Trevor MacDonald on Friday. That’s a pity as I gather me mate Adam from SAVE was on, as part of another expose of the whole dreadful Pathfinder programme. As he managed to miss it too neither of us know in detail what it was about. See however my other posts about the Darwen Inquiry. And he’s one I pretty much reckon has a great deal of expertise and a heap of qualifications and whose opinions I value too.

It must have hit a nerve though, as before it was even broadcast the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had written a statement rubbishing it. As with the nonsense written by the ODPM when the SAVE Pathfinder report was published – again, before they had even read it they had declared it to be ’scaremongering’ and wrong. Hmmmm. I’m still waiting for a reply to an e-mail I sent putting the record straight. Undaunted, I’ll be sending another this morning, again raising issues with the latest statement.

If you all read the link below, you’ll se that one of the reasons given for the demolition of the Welsh Streets in Liverpool is yes, our old pal RISING DAMP. .

(Lack of foundations is another previously given, although as that possibly includes most housing stock built pre 20th century maybe we should all have our homes compulsorily purchased and razed to the ground as a cure. The twaddle about space too – knock two together maybe? And some of these homes aren’t as tiny as the press release is making out! Anyhow – a large number of home owners don’t want huge houses. But I digress).

So – RISING DAMP - it’s a reason why homes are to be bulldozed.

Right then - here’s a challenge to all you experts who know about Rising Damp. Is it a reason to demolish these homes? How about writing or phoning the ODPM (see contact link on the top of the ODPM page) and stating that you are all experts and that you make a living from assessing and curing and controlling damp. How about offering to go along to see for yourselves, and see if the damp is actually rising, and if you can come up with something as revolutionary as a solution? One which doesn’t involve the bulldozers? And post copies of your letters and e-mails here so we can all read them?

Or is Rising Damp so serious we all ought to be fleeing our homes? And not bothering to emply you at all?



http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1164465

 

[Anonymous]

GRC

I never claimed to have any credibility, never claimed to be the PPUK spokesperson, just would like the 'experts' to try and put things into perspective for lay persons like myself - that was the intention of the post.

Shame - you are obviously yet another 'expert' that can not give a straight and simple answer - who just resorts to retaliations (bit of a troll perhaps?). You are showing your true colours here.

At least some views on the questions raised in the posting would have been appreciated. Bbut then again - don't bother as I am sorry but - for me at least - your credibility on any contribution has gone down the pan, so to speak.

 

[Anonymous]

Is it eight out of ten cats which prefer Whiskas?

Or nine? Anyhow, no-one asked my cat what she preferred, and I wonder how large and meaningful the sample was? Or how the tests were controlled?

Same with all those ads which claim that women have tested miracle creams and a large percentage agree that it turned back the clock ten years (they didn't ask me...)

If you look at the small print the sample of women asked was a few dozen, self-testing and responding. So not really figures on which I'll be rushing out and buying, at large cost, such miracle cures for my advancing years and the attendant crinkling.

Bit like the ODPM's claim about 72% of residents who voted for demolition.

Actually, I don't think so. That's another skewed statistic. If only a small number respond then that's not 72% of residents. That's 72% of those who may have responded. That may be a very small number out of the whole number of residents.

That doesn't make 72% of residents voting in favour of having their homes demolished.

I am always very wary of research findings.

 

[Anonymous]

Evelyn said she " managed to miss Tonight with Trevor MacDonald on Friday. That’s a pity as I gather me mate Adam from SAVE was on, as part of another expose of the whole dreadful Pathfinder programme. As he managed to miss it too neither of us know in detail what it was about. See however my other posts about the Darwen Inquiry. And he’s one I pretty much reckon has a great deal of expertise and a heap of qualifications and whose opinions I value too."

For some unknown reason I actually saw it! It was frightening (no, not Adam) - people got £36,000 compensation for their house - where in Liverpool are they expected to get another house?
Oh, yes - they can get a special loaan - and the 78 year old? She's not going to be allowed a 20 year loan, is she.
What planet do these developers live on?
(I know, Planet Profit)

It scares me because the houses round my way could be next.

 

[Anonymous]

People have been offered rather less than that in some places - a few grand in fact. One chap, campaigning against the demolitions in Doncaster tells of a pensioner given eight grand, another nothing. In Darwen a man whose house was worth about seventy grand in 2004 has now been offered eighteen as the value has plummetted owing to the bulldozing plans! Where can he buy another for that?

It's something I've been e-mailing the SAVE office about this morning - following that press statement from the ODPM - although negative equity is supposed to be avoided through equity share schemes and partial ownership etc, it still means people won't actually any longer own their own homes.

And SAVE has examples of pensioners being offered mortgages to enable them to buy a home as the compensation offered for theirs is#####all and they can't afford to buy elsewhere.

 

[Anonymous]

I still dont understand the view that just because some organisation prints something it somehow turns into a fact.

If it really does, I have 100 bridges for sale.

NT

 

[Anonymous]

How many experts told us for years that smoking was perfectly safe? Research had shown etc. What sort of expert told a court that the chances of a cot death happening twice by chance in the same family was of a probability of one in 73 million? I think that you have to read research with a healthy dose of wider background knowledge to put it into context and perspective. As anyone who has carried out research knows!

How many damp experts have rushed to answer the question - is 'rising damp' a sufficient reason to demolish a whole swathe of historic terraces in Liverpool (and indeed elsewhere)?

 

[Anonymous]

Well put Evelyn !!.

It's a wonder that Venice is still standing now that the damp meter man has taken over from correct materials and proper ventilation.

 

[Anonymous]

i think he was saying that it is a fact that the organisation published these findings, and possibly that it's a fact that, using their standards of defining rising damp, this proportion of properties can be said to be affected. what isn't a fact is that the standards by which they define damp are correct, or possibly that their statistics as published are correct.

 

[Anonymous]

It's worrying though that so many believe all they read are 'facts'... especially when you consider that people's houses are now being forcibly taken from them by some who think that 'rising damp' is a 'fact' and that it therefore makes homes uninhabitable.

Even more worrying is the 'fact' that many of the people who own these homes claim that they have already paid to have the damp corrected - by damp proof 'experts'...

Doesn't fill me with much hope really.

 

[Anonymous]

They arent knocking down those houses because of Rising Damp, how can they be.......you lot keep telling me that it doesnt exist! Or does it ?

TDM

 

[Anonymous]

Well, that's what the ODPM says - I keep an open mind. I do wonder about the limitations of gravity though.

If you are such an expert - do you think RISING DAMP is a cause to demolish houses? Or do you think that you can control/cure it?

If not - I do hope you don't charge money for saying you can! That would be so dishonest.

 

[Anonymous]

Evelyn,

Are you saying that these houses are being demolshed due to Rising Damp and no other factors involved?

I was (many years ago) involved with some damp problems on Portland Island where a row of terraced house had such severe damp that what ever they did failed, to the point that the houses were unhabitable. The bricks were sodden to the point were you could almost push your fingers into them. Outcome rebuilt!

I dont know much about the properties up north but whilst appreciating different environment etc, there must come a point when the cost of repair out strips the cost of rebuild. If you take all other factors into account.

Im also sure that if you asked the locals if they want a house thats damp and been refurbished or a new house Im sure most would say the latter.

Im afraid its a sad fact of life!

PC

 

[Anonymous]

I'm saying that it's one of the reasons the ODPM is giving. I'm not actually sure that it has actually been asessed by anyone with any expertise at all... other than a Man with a Meter. see my posts re Darwen.

It's called Politics. And it is nasty.

if you think you can help to realistically assess the supposed 'rising damp' assessment I think it would be interesting...

 

[Anonymous]

Dawen - with a bit of luck!

Tell me this is fair, and be afraid, very afraid.

A statement by SAVE Britain’s Heritage to the Inquiry into the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order affecting the “Red Earth Triangle” in Darwen, Lancashire

1. I am Adam Wilkinson, Secretary of SAVE Britain’s Heritage. I hold an MA in Mediaeval History and Russian Language and a MSc in Historic Conservation from Oxford Brookes and Oxford University. I also am a director of Maintain our Heritage, a member of the Churches Conservation Trust conservation advisory committee, a trustee of the Monuments and Mausolea Trust and sit on the Council of Europa Nostra, the pan-European federation of heritage organisations.

2. SAVE Britain’s Heritage is an independent charity that campaigns for threatened historic buildings and areas across the UK.

3. SAVE’s interest in the fate of Northern towns and cities dates back to the early 1980s when we published a series of reports on Northern towns and their heritage, and put on the exhibition “Satanic Mills” looking at the heritage of the northern mill towns.

4. Over the last two years we have become especially involved with local groups in Pathfinder areas, supporting them whilst gaining a broad understanding of the Housing Market Renewal Initiative’s aims and varying methods.

5. SAVE has recently published “Pathfinder”, an investigation into the Housing Market Renewal Initiative. This report takes a critical looks at the Housing Market Renewal Initiative and includes a series of case studies including the Red Earth Triangle. The report calls for a moratorium on the demolition of up to 168,000 pre-1919 terraced houses on a series of grounds, from improvements in the housing market through to a failure to properly investigate the alternatives to demolition. It is difficult to see how in a capitalist economy the State could ever interfere with the operation of otherwise free housing market. A copy of the report is annexed to this statement.

6. Our attention was first drawn to the Red Earth Triangle by concerned local residents in the summer of 2004. In spite of our clearly stated interest in the area, and communication with the local authority, the Pathfinder body, Elevate East Lancashire, and the Government Officer for the Northwest, at no stage were we informed of the timing of this Public Inquiry. For this reason I apologise for the rather hasty appearance of this evidence.

7. Article 6(1) of the European Convention requires that equality of arms be secured in respect of the hearing into whether or not a person’s home be taken against his or her will. That obligation also binds the inspector. It is not enough for him or her to give mere “leeway” to lay objectors. There is a gross inequality of arms in this “regeneration” process, both in the creation of proposals for a clearance area and in this particular forum – the local authority has at its disposal a level of expertise and funding not available to local residents, whether individually or en masse. There can be no doubt that the residents were unfamiliar with the planning process, even less so with the complex legal and factual in and outs of the (many) Housing Acts, which can be very confusing even for lawyers, let alone lay people. A responsible local authority ought, in such a situation, offer a community group financial support for the hearing into its acquisition of individual’s home which it most often is otherwise unable to afford. There is no legal aid for inquiries other than exceptionally. SAVE is not aware of any support being offered by the local authority.

8. In the question of demolitions on the scale proposed for the Red Earth Triangle, the key point is whether the loss of good historic buildings and their attendant communities is balanced out by wider gains for the community that would result from the demolition. This was clearly summarised by the Inspector in the recent CPO inquiries in Whitefield, Nelson. The community in and around the Red Earth Triangle has nothing whatsoever to gain from the demolition of their homes.

9. Consequently it is virtually impossible to discuss historic areas such as the Red Earth Triangle separately from the local community. The community brings the heritage to life and the buildings are, respectively, their heritage.

10. The Housing Market Renewal Programme does not require mass demolition of historic buildings. It can equally be used to help areas through careful repair and inspired leadership. SAVE holds that the Red Earth Triangle proposals have little to do with Housing Market Renewal and more to do with a scheme for a city academy. There is little evidence that the housing market in the area had actually failed before the emergence of the clearance proposals.

Heritage

11. Heritage is not confined to historic listed buildings but includes the built fabric and the community inhabiting it.

12. The threatened buildings are part of a mill workers’ estate dating from the 1870s and they adjoin a conservation area. The estate remains mostly intact, other than the loss of one of the churches. Such estates aimed to provide affordable housing for workers and their families, a function that they have carried out well ever since. A part of the estate is within a conservation area. There is little difference in the quality of buildings in the conservation area and those not in the conservation area but in the proposed clearance area. The majority are simple two-up two-down houses with small back yards, upgraded by their owners to meet the requirements of modern living. They were at the time of our first visit in 2004 lived in by a well established community, within walking distance of shops, schools and churches – in essence a model sustainable community.

13. Heritage forms an important part of the identity of Darwen and of the community. This is not necessarily the statutorily protected heritage, rather it is the wider heritage or Darwen as a historic mill town, with its mighty India Mill, and a pattern of housing that impart a clear sense of place, with views out to the hills beyond.

The abuse of the Housing Act

14. SAVE holds that this is a case of the wrong Act served on the wrong houses in the wrong manner for the wrong purposes.

15. The key points in relation to the Council’s failure to correctly execute the Housing Act are:

· The correct statutory test should be whether the houses are fit for “occupation” not “habitation”, which is a higher threshold. Instead the Council appears to have considered the fitness test against a wrong (and higher) threshold, at one point even citing the Decent Homes Standard. It follows that the statutory presumption of fitness is not discharged.

· The pro forma letter sent to residents reveals no fact and degree assessment of analysis of why a given house is not suitable for occupation by reference to the qualifying criteria. That means that the neither the Inspector nor objectors are able to know how or why a house is said to be unfit or why the Council thinks it so. It is not enough for the Council to say that criteria x applies to a house, because the statutory test requires the consequences on occupation of that particular criteria to be thought through.

· Section 289 (3)(a)(i) requires the Council exclude from the clearance area map any residential property that is not unfit – that is the statute removes from the order lands, by operation of law, properties fit for occupation.

16. The removal from the clearance area map of all the buildings that at the time of the survey were fit for occupation (not habitation) would reveal only a handful of unfit buildings remaining within the Order Land as “unfit”, not the 94% claimed. This figure is a gross exaggeration of the real situation. It also demonstrates the Council’s failure to act in accordance with the law required as the start point to any interference with another’s property or home.

17. Section 289 (2) makes it clear that demolition has to be the most satisfactory course of action. SAVE has seen no evidence to prove that this is the case – there has been no real discussion of the alternatives to demolition, such as improvement or adaptation of the existing houses, and as far we are aware this has never been presented as an option to residents.

18. It is clear that from the outset of the scheme there has been a proposal to erect a city academy on the Order lands, and that this proposal was withheld from residents. This in effect means that firstly, the key driver for the scheme is not the condition of the houses, rather the desire to create a development site suitable for the academy, and secondly, that the entire consultation process was a farce. This can do little for the credibility of the Council or confidence of the people in the system.

19. Section 604 of the Act, in relation to the condition of a house, assumes until proven otherwise that:

(a) It is structurally stable
(b) It is free from serious disrepair
(c) It is free from dampness prejudicial to the health of the occupants (if any)
(d) It has adequate provision for lighting heating and ventilation
(e) It has an adequate supply of wholesome water
(f) There are satisfactory facilities in the dwelling house for the preparation and cooking of food, including a sink with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water
(g) It has a suitable located water closet for the exclusive use of the occupants (if any)
(h) It has, for the exclusive use of the occupants (if any) a suitable located fixed bath or shower and wash hand basin each of which is provided with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water
(i) It has an effective system for the draining of foul, waste and surface water

20. SAVE strongly questions the ability of the (alleged qualified) surveyors employed by the Council to judge all of these points on the basis of a brief visual external inspection. Furthermore, we question the qualifications of these surveyors and of those interpreting the surveys. The surveys that we have seen appear to have been altered in places to “mark down” buildings to ensure that they did not meet the tests for unfitness.

21. The inspector is himself unable to make good deficiencies in the Council’s case otherwise than unfairly (and in breach of Article 6(1) fairness requirements including impartiality).

22. The question of the qualifications of the surveyors was brought up both by SAVE and by Mr. Brian Clancy in letters to the Council. There appears a real skills deficit within the Council for which the residents should not carry the demolition can. Residence evidence indicates the surveys were undertaken by unqualified students. It appears that the surveyors were not properly qualified to make a properly considered nor adequate assessment of the condition of the houses that could withstand scrutiny at an inquiry- yet the proposals for clearance are based on such alleged “surveys”.

23. Mr Clancy surveyed a number of houses in the order lands that had been deemed unfit by these surveys. Mr. Clancy is a highly qualified and highly reputable surveyor with extensive experience of dealing with historic buildings and structures. Following thorough surveys of these houses, he found that the to be in at worst fair and at best good condition.

The approach of the Council

24. The attitude of the leader of the Council to Mr. Clancy’s surveys, as outlined in her letter to me of 15th September, is without explanation, dismissive, and unbecoming of the leader of a democratically elected body, in whose hands the future of a community lies. This attitude pervades the entire scheme.

25. The attitude of the Council to the community throughout the process has been interesting. Mr Clancy relates in his letter to Mr Osman the bizarre story of his visit to one house, to find a Councillor seemingly purporting to be its owner. This sort of bullying is unacceptable. It appears that this bullying is not just confined to residents: the local MP was censored by her own party for speaking up in favour of residents whose homes were threatened.

26. Consultation of the community by the Council has fallen short of any lawful and meaningful standard. It has instead been ineffective. To our knowledge the Council has not produced any figures for the percentage of households that voted for demolition.

27. Indeed it is not clear that the demolition of the entire area was ever mentioned to residents as an option. The absence of survey justification may be the reason why not.

28. Meetings between the Council and representatives of the community (minuted by Natasha Lea Jones) confirm that the community was largely kept in the dark throughout the process of the development of the scheme – having asked what the exact figures were for the repair of the buildings vs demolition and rebuild, the community was told that these would be produced at a Public Inquiry. SAVE would be interested to know if the Inspector has been informed of these figures. Likewise they were told that evidence of subsidence would be produced at the Public Inquiry.

29. A further, and quite dreadful example of the complete lack of communication between the Council and the community is that the community had to ask what the criteria for a Section 289 notice were. Likewise, one of the reasons given for clearance of the area was subsidence through mining activities, yet the area has a live railway line travelling through it. Curiously, the subsidence appears to stop abruptly at the edge of the conservation area. Even more curiously, historic maps reveal no mining activities in the area

Abandonment and Market Failure

30. Aside from whether it is possible for the Government to lawfully or factually interfere with a free market outside of command economies such as the former USSR, the key motivation for the Housing Market Renewal Initiative is to (attempt) to solve economic and social issues surrounding market failure. In September 2004 there was little evidence of market failure, with two bedroom houses in the area fetching between £60,000 and £75,000. While this is a little below the average for the area, it is as far from tales of homes changing hands in a pub for £10 as could be imagined. Any market failure that has occurred since has in effect been engineered by the Council and the Pathfinder body through the scheme.

31. When SAVE first visited the area in 2004 there were at most ten empty houses, owned by the local authority. Abandonment has only really occurred since the proposals for clearance came to light. It could be argued that the abandonment of this historic area is not so much about people abandoning it as about the local authority abandoning it. The proper management of areas, historic or otherwise, is key to their market value. The CPRE’s research “Useless Old Homes?” found that the key problems were not the buildings but the social conditions that surround the homes – perceived crime levels, litter and so forth.

32. People leave an area such as this only when they feel that they have done all the can when confronted with a faceless and unaccountable system intent on the blighting and consequent destruction of their homes and heritage. We understand that the Council has already demolished some of the homes in the area that it owns. SAVE is concerned that actions such as this, while not materially affecting the question of fitness, unnecessarily create blight and threaten those still in the area.

33. The true picture appears as follows.

http://www.schmidtreport.co.uk/Subscribers/sub1.html
“Here’s a quick reminder to readers involved in property development that the tax incentives on any regeneration of brown-field sites mean that “qualifying land remediation expenditure” is eligible for up to 150% tax relief. In plain English if you spend £50K making previously developed land (a brown-field site) suitable for say housing _ and then build those houses – you can claim £75K tax relief. The relief exists because the government want to see new dwellings built on previously developed land. It is a fantastic method of boosting property profits"

Sustainability

34. The demolition of around 160 well built, structurally sound attractive stone houses built at a PPG3 compliant high density in an urban setting that can support public services and which contribute to the sense of place is also a blatant waste of scarce resources and embodied energy. Yet there have been no energy calculations to demonstrate the scale of the loss of this energy.

35. Whilst a key benefit to private market developers, it is also a waste of scarce public funding, which could be better spent on helping owners, where needed repair their historic homes, and where needed, knit the townscape back together. Economically the scheme makes little sense: to demolish a house of this sort, while salvaging its materials costs in the region of £15,000, and the cost of purchase, at market rates, should be at the very least £50,000. Thus the Council appears to be spending in the region of £10,000,000 to destroy a community, destroy 160 historic homes to create a development site. The cost of repair, at a generous £25,000 per building would be at most £4,000,000.

Summary

36. This scheme is:
· not about Housing Market Renewal,
· not about the condition of the houses,
· not about the proud heritage of Darwen,
· not about sustaining the local community.

37. It is about a Council imposing its will on the unwilling, and attempting to abuse the powers granted to it under the Housing Act.

38. Even in doing this, it has failed to follow the law, meaning that the presumption of fitness remains intact on the basic facts. A map of those fit for occupation could not constitute a clearance area map. We would draw the Inspector’s attention to the result of the Inquiry into the proposed compulsory purchase of homes in Whitefield, Lancs, in particular to the section on fitness.

39. It is SAVE’s experience that homes such as these can be easily repaired and areas such as this easily be given new life, such as with the Railway Village in Swindon. Demolition should always have been the last option for the Red Earth Triangle; instead it appears to have been the first. Less intrusive means of regeneration have been simply ignored in pursuit of brownfield profits at community expense.

40. SAVE urges the Inspector to throw out this unnecessary attempt to compulsorily purchase this historic area for clearance as part of a contrived effort on the part of the Council to create a town centre development site. There is no overwhelming public benefit in this scheme.

 

[Anonymous]

Its a sad fact of life that so many are willing to believe such obviously duff logic.

If it makes you feel better to justify someone having their perfectly ok house forcibly taken off them for £8000, I dunno. To me its corrupt, and such corruption and dishonesty has nothing to do with 'a good thing.'

NT