A HOUSING expert has told a second public inquiry into a controversial renewal plan that low demand for homes in a run down Pendle ward could only be tackled through demolition.
Government inspector Philip Asquith re-opened the inquiry into Pendle Council's plans to compulsory purchase and demolish 162 homes in Nelson West, after the Secretary of State said he did not have enough evidence to make a decision following the first inquiry in January 2002.
The council had said that a scheme involving both clearance and repairs was necessary to regenerate the area but English Heritage and other groups, including local residents, said the pre-1919 terraced houses should remain.
On the first day of the reconvened inquiry the council called Professor Philip Leather, an expert in housing and urban renewal, to give evidence as to why the collapse of the local housing market meant a repair scheme without clearance would not be sufficient.
Prof Leather said that wards throughout Pendle had houses at risk of low demand but that in the Whitefield and Bradley wards, 100 per cent of the houses fell into that category.
He said: "It would of course be possible to repair the dwellings for social or for heritage reasons but this would not impact or reduce voids. It would not restore demand because investment in repair does not address the causes of low demand and market collapse.
"These problems arise because of longer term economic and demographic decline and the increasing aspirations of households in Pendle and elsewhere for housing which meets 21st century rather than 19th century needs and lifestyles and for neighbourhoods which provide attractive safe surroundings, a decent environment and good quality local services and facilities.
"The failure to address these more fundamental issues would ensure that high vacancy levels and low property values would remain to be addressed. The danger that problems would spread elsewhere would remain and vandalism and neglect of maintenance would quickly undermine the investment that had taken place, representing a waste of resources for owners or the organisation funding the renovation work."
The inquiry was continuing today.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article