|
|
MALTBY TARRAN ESTATE DEMOLITION This section of my site is to highlight the appalling way in which RMBC are treating the residents on the Tarran estate in Maltby, Rotherham, of which I am one.. Please click the links to contact myself, Paul Benson at RMBC or fill in a comments form for if you have any views on the contents of this site. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Civic Building, Walker Place Rotherham S65 1UF. Telephone 44 (0)1709 382121
Rotherham advertiser 01/05/2008 15:59:55 Resident claims that authority gives safety a 'very low priority'
AN ANGRY resident whose street was littered with asbestos for 16 days has accused Rotherham Borough Council of turning a blind eye to hazards.
Exposed manholes, dangerous fencing and loose bolts on asbestos roofing are just a few problems David Hayward claims RMBC are blighting his estate-where many properties are waiting to be demolished as part of a regeneration scheme.
Mr Hayward, of Newland Avenue on the Tarran Estate in Maltby, said, this week, that the safety of residents was a "very low priority" to the authority.
He slammed: "The council do not seem to consider these to be health and safety issues."
Mr Hayward unleashed his attack after asbestos roof sheeting was blown onto his street and left for over two weeks for children to play with, as previously reported by the Advertiser.
He said that vacant properties without floor boards were easily accessible to vandals or children, several man holes had been left uncovered, damaged guttering was unsafe and fencing was hanging over the footpath.
Mr Hayward claimed said that a council contractor had already fallen through the roof of one unsafe rotting garage.
He said: "All these things are accidents waiting to happen, someone is going to be seriously injured."
He added that while residents were waiting for repairs, barbed wire used for security had been taken down by the council, a move he described as"nonsense.
A spokeswoman for Rotherham Borough Council said: "We understand the difficulties which the regeneration programme at Maltby presents and will continue to deal with issues as effectively as possible.
"A number of manhole covers had been removed and work has been completed to remove any hazards to residents. "We are anxious to ensure that all properties in the area are secure and that residents live in a safe environment. The council are incapable of the truth, we still have damaged fencing protruding over foot paths, open drains full of sewage and asbestos littering the gardens of vacant properties. They have not improved the security of the properties or done anything to ensure that the loose asbestos is secure. They have picked up the litter on the street and carried out some garden maintenance. I have just rescued 2 frogs from one open drain full of sewage. To look at pictures click here.
"We do not promote the use of barbed wire for health and safety reasons, but we will look at alternative ways to ensure Mr Hayward's home is secure." But they do allow the contractor building Maltby council offices to use it and they use it for security round council allotments and on the council wardens property to name but a few.
The authority said that properties would be inspected on a regular basis during weekly estate walkabouts, by the council, neighbourhood wardens and South Yorkshire Police. The problem here is they do and have carried out monthly walkabouts for the past 12 months and they do write down all the work that needs doing, they just don’t do the work.
But Mr Hayward said that residents were getting fed-up of being left in the lurch with some waiting up to eight months for repairs, while properties awaiting demolition stood empty.
He said: "The residents have had no apologies from the council, just threats of eviction and compulsory purchases.
"2010 can never seem to find the time to carry out repair work to occupied properties but they can find the time to make my property less secure.
"It would seem that their priorities are to victimise residents instead of helping us."
The council denied this claim and said:"We are continuing to work with individual residents to address neighbourhood concerns, to meet their housing needs and facilitate their rehousing from the area.
"No one has been threatened with eviction and the council is continuing to negotiate with owners to prevent the need for compulsory purchase action."
Date Posted: 01/05/2008 15:59:55
On 02 December 2005 A spokeswoman for Rotherham Borough Council told the Dinnington Guardian "We will not be going down the compulsory
purchase order route" This was coppied from the councils relocation pack which was given to us 12 months ago. As a last resort where the council and you cannot achieve agreement the council may pursue a compulsory purchase order (private properties) or a notice seeking possession (council properties) This sounds like a threat to me and the council will not negotiate. Thoughts on the redevelopment of the tarran site were put forward at a Maltby forum meeting, but these thought have not been put to the residents of the estate. We are not being involved in things that will affect our lives.
Rotherham Metropolitan borough council claimed in the early stages of the redevelopment of the Tarran estate in Maltby that it would be a partnership between the residents and themselves, that there would be regular resident meeting to talk about the redevelopment, and that we would be involved in all aspects of the development at all stages. In reality they do not communicate with us, they do not involve use, and they usually do the opposite to what we request. They are closer to a dictatorship than a democracy. Some residents asked for the windows on the property next to them not to be boarded up so they boarded them, some asked for fencing to be left in place so they removed it, I asked for some edges to be removed and litter and debris to be removed so they left it. It’s coming up to four years and we have not been told what is going to be built or when, only that they are in discussions with housing association and that we can not be involved. I have tried to negotiate the sale of my property with them on several occasions but they will not negotiate. Some of the pensioners on the estate would like to move into bungalows near by, but the council refuses to allow this, one of them was offered a flat, miles away from the area. Requests from tenants for repair work are often ignored or delayed. The contractors they employ are unprofessional and often incapable of doing the job they are there to do. The only thing the council are good at is ignoring our requests for better security on the estate, just recently they removed barbed wire that was in place to prevent vandals climbing onto a garage roof, they were concerned for the health and safety of the vandals, but they show no concern for our safety.
Published Date: 11 March 2004
Location: Dinnington Guardian
The Tarran houses in Maltby A MALTBY housing estate could be demolished if it costs Rotherham Council too much to repair tenants homes.
Under current proposals the 88 Tarran houses on Newlands Avenue, Braithwell Road and Chadwick Drive could all be knocked down.
Rotherham Council admitted they are considering demolition after a recommendation in a report from the head of housing services.
"It was proposed that demolition was the best option for the long term sustainability of the estate," said a council spokesman.
If the council decide to take this option, all the 88 homes on the estate would be knocked down and the land sold off to a developer.
Problems with the estate began last year after tenants discovered there was asbestos in the roofs of their homes.
"We have to make sure all council houses reach the Government's Decent Homes Standard by 2010," said a council spokesman.
"It was acknowledged that redevelopment may be the only cost effective way forward for his estate," she said.
Of the 88 homes, 74 are council owned. Tenants have been promised they will be given priority once they move out.
The other 14 homes are privately owned having been bought from the council at reduced prices.
"Current owners have been consulted on the proposals and negotiations will be held with them,"said a spokesman.
"These plans are at a very early stage and it would be some years before the houses are demolished."
"We have held a consultation with the Tarran Action Group and we will continue to do so in the years to come."
But earlier this week surprised residents said they knew nothing of the council's plans to demolish the houses.
"This has come as a complete surprise to all of us – we have not been told about this," said chairman of the Tarran Action Group Lisa Duvalle.
"We received a newsletter saying a survey had been carried out and listing the repairs needed"
"It is an anxious time for everyone because no-one knows if the council is planning to carry out this work or not," said Ms Duvalle.
Another resident said she was not aware demolition was being considered and did not want the house to be knocked down.
"These are good houses in a good area and we have a good community which would be destroyed," she said.
"This may be the best option for the council but what kind of houses are we going to get if we are re-housed?"
Dinnington Guardian
02 December 2005 Time comes to say 'ta-ra' to Maltby's Tarran homes
PEOPLE living in the condemned Maltby Tarran houses saw the final nail hammered into their homes' coffin this week when Rotherham Council applied for a demolition order. More than 80 homes, originally built as post-war temporary accommodation, face the wrecking ball as they have failed to come up to the Government's decent homes standard. Exactly half of those living on Braithwell Road, Chadwick Drive and Newland Avenue have already moved out, but for those who remain it's a stressful time. Michael and Andrea Smith live in one of the 43 homes yet to be vacated and are struggling to find another council house to move into.
"The council send us a list of available properties every week, but we can't find anything. We want to move into somewhere as good as we've got now but it's looking impossible," said Mr Smith, of Braithwell Road.
"We have two daughters who go to school in Maltby, so we can't move out of the town."
"But the only homes available in Maltby are on estates we don't want to live on because they've got a bad reputation."
"We don't know what to do at the moment. It's a very worrying time."
Mrs Smith is also worried about the state of her home at the moment.
"The council aren't carrying out any improvement work because the houses are being knocked down, and I hate having to live like this," she said.
"Our bath is broken and the tiles are coming off the bathroom wall, but they won't send anybody out to fix it because the house is set to be demolished."
"We do want to move out into another house, even though we will be sad to leave, but we won't move into anywhere that's not right for us."
Neighbours and fellow council tenants Tony and Betty Swan say they are experiencing the same problems.
"We have lived here for 28 years and really love our home. We've spent a lot of money improving it over the years," said Mr Swan.
"It's better than your standard council house and we don't want to move but know we have to."
"But what the council have been offering us just isn't good enough. We have a lovely garden now and a drive to park our car – we don't want to give these up."
His wife is just as adamant to stay put until something suitable becomes available.
"We have children and grandchildren in the area so we want to stay to be near them and we need three bedrooms for when they stay," said Mrs Swan. "There's no way we're going anywhere until the council can offer us that."
Chris Brown, who is managing the project for the council, says they are doing all they can to help the residents through the moving process.
"We certainly are still carrying out repairs, but we are no longer investing money in improvements because that would not be good use of council money," he said.
"We know this is a very stressful time for those living in the Tarrans."
"Nobody will be forced to move out before they are ready."
"It is very challenging trying to cater for everyone's needs but we are keeping in close contact with all the residents and are trying to come up with the best relocation package for everyone individually." Some residents across the three streets own their own homes. Ian and Sheila Vine are one such couple and they too are having problems. "We have lived here for 40 years, all our married life and it's going to be heartbreaking to leave," said Mrs Vine. "I take a real pride in my home and so I want to be able to buy something of the same quality when we leave, but we are having problems negotiating a selling price with the council."
The Vines home is no longer a traditional Tarran because they forked out £33,000 13 years ago to completely replace the concrete walls with brick.
They have since built a £10,000 conservatory and have had their home valued at around £130,000.
"The council isn't offering us money close to what we would need to buy a house of this quality," added Mrs Vine. "And we can't get a mortgage because we will both be retired next year, so we can't move out until they give us a fair price."
"I sent a letter to the council telling them the valuation in September but I haven't heard anything back."
Mr Brown said the council will be visiting Mr and Mrs Vine next week to discuss the house purchase further.
"We want to give them a fair price and we will be negotiating further with them," he said.
"We will not be going down the compulsory purchase order route and want to settle everything amicably." The council have threatened the owners with compulsory purchase and will not negotiate! RMBC are planning to sell the land to an housing association and the tax payer will have to contribute to the cost of the new houses. Information on how RMBC made the decision to demolish the concrete prefabs on the mannor estate. ROTHERHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL – REPORT TO MEMBERS
PRC Licensed Repair Scheme ₤3,963,750 Wrong £3,737,250
CGU 2000 Mortgageable Repair Scheme ₤3,043,250
Decent Homes Repair Works ₤2,815,750
The costs of acquisition and demolition are:
Acquisition of 16 private properties ₤928,000. Wrong actually 20 private houses £1.300,000
Home Loss Costs ₤266,000 Wrong should be £347,600
Disturbance Costs ₤43,000
Demolition ₤791,200
Total ₤2,028,200 Total £2,481,800 assuming the 20 private sell
for £65,000 each which is unlikely.
The repair figure for the Decent Homes Standard includes a total of ₤12,750
recommended by Curtins Counsulting for concrete repairs and over-rendering
together with the costs of asbestos removal. This represents an increase of
over 50% on the assessed core Decent Homes Standard costs provided by
Curtins Consulting of ₤21,075
The costs associated with each of the three repair options exceeds the costs
of acquisition and demolition. The differences are outlined below:
Full mortgageability: ₤3.963,750 – ₤2,028,200 = ₤1,935,550 should be £1,255,450
CGU 2000 Scheme: ₤3,043,250 - ₤2,028,200 = ₤1,015,050
Decent Homes Standard: ₤2,815,750 – ₤2,028,200 = ₤787,550
Members are reminded that the opinion provided by Curtins Consulting states
that under the CGU Scheme, obtaining mortgages in 20 years time
(considerably less if a 30 year lifespan is envisaged) will be problematic and
the Decent Homes Standard provides no mortgageability at all. Only the full
repair scheme provides a guaranteed 60-80 year life span.
It is therefore concluded that in financial terms the costs of repair and
refurbishment significantly exceed the costs of demolition. In addition, the
Decent Homes Standard and CGU 2000 Scheme offer no or limited
mortgageability respectively, thus hindering the aspirations of tenants who
may in future wish to exercise the right to buy.
The acquisition and demolition of the properties is the recommended
option for ensuring the long term sustainability of the estate.
This conclusion is reached taking account of all the relevant factors including value for money.
How can the estate have long term sustainability if it demolished.
The council did not include loss of rent approximately £780,000 over 5 years.
They did not include maintenance costs for Fencing, boarding up ect. No idea what this will have cost over 5 years.
They did not include the re-building of the estate, if as they say an housing association builds on the land the tax payer will have to contribute an average of £62,000 per house built, 66 houses = £4,092,000
It would have cost the tax payer £3,737,250 recovered in rent over 21 years to repair to full mortgageability. The council would have owned property to the value of approximately £6,600,000 bases on £100,000 per house. These houses would have then generated a rental income of well over £20,000,000 over the rest of their life.
Instead it will cost the tax payer approximately £6,573,800 to buy back, demolish and contribute to housing association building costs, subtract the sale of the land £3,500,000 = £3,073,800 cost to tax payer and the loss of 66 social houses with a value of approximately £6,600,000 bases on £100,000 per house. Then the loss of rent for the next 30 to 40 years. Not sure how they think this is value for money.
Section from Curtins Consulting Engineers report (Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council) cost of repairs
December 2004
A Structural Assessment of the Non Traditional
Tarran Houses in Maltby, Rotherham There are three repair schemes considered within these report, each of which will ensure a minimum future life of 30 years and meet the requirements of the Decent Homes Standards. The choice of solution is primarily a financial one and depends upon the individual circumstances of the local authority or RSL. If finance were available, it is recommended that a PRC Licensed Repair Scheme be adopted. This scheme removes the PRC elements and effectively converts the dwellings into traditional houses, with a projected lifespan of at least 60 years, but in all probability up to 80 years. However, it is possible that many more tenants will exercise their right to buy once the costly work has been undertaken. Cost of PRC Licensed Repair Scheme and Decent Homes work £47.000 The average cost of social housing is £133,941 a home. The Government contributes an average of £62,000 of taxpayers' cash with the rest coming from developers or social landlords. So as you can see it would have cost the tax payer less to repair them. Maltby residents face debt or demolition
By Chantal Spittles
THREATS of demolition and debt hang over the heads of furious Maltby residents who are facing eviction from their own homes. The Tarran estate of 86 pre-fab houses has become a shadow of its former self since Rotherham Council began its relocation programme in 2004, making way for a new residential development.
Over 50 properties are now lying empty and boarded up, and many are in a rotten and rat-infested state.
And now the remaining homeowners are being asked to hand over their house to the council for a fraction of the market value – or face eviction. "I am not moving," said 73-year-old Peter Ingram, of Newlands Avenue.
"I have lived on this estate for 36 years and until the council come up with what I consider to be a comparable offer, I am staying. " Added Sheila Vine of Braithwell Road: "My husband and I have lived here for 42 years, and this house has been mortgage free for several years." "The council has offered a price that's made it impossible to leave. We're in no man's land." Rotherham Council launched its relocation programme on the Tarran estate back in 2004, following a recommendation from the head of housing that it was failing to deliver value for money.
"It was proposed that the demolition was the best option for the long term sustainability of the estate," said regeneration programme manager Chris Brown. "It is intended to redevelop the site to provide affordable houses of high design that will complement the Maltby masterplan."
Problems on the estate began in 2003 after tenants discovered there was asbestos on the roofs of their homes.
"We have to make sure all council houses reach the Government's Decent Homes standard by 2010," said a council spokesman at the time. "It was acknowledged that redevelopment may be the only cost effective way forward for this estate." Of the 86 homes, 74 are council-owned and tenants have been given priority with being moved.
Remaining private homeowners have been offered a relocation package, which includes an offer against their property, based on a council or independent valuation. "If agreement still cannot be reached, we will also finance the district auditor to carry out an independent valuation of the property," added Mr Brown.
But this has angered residents who feel they have been offered an unfair sum to leave their homes which they have worked hard to buy. "I have had a stroke and do not need this stress at this time in my life," said Mr Ingram. "I will move, but I have only been offered around £60,000 to relocate. It does not reflect the current market value. I could not even begin to buy a three-bedroomed house for that." Mrs Vine, 65, said that she and her husband Ian, 66, had worked all their lives for their retirement.
"We've been offered £110,000 for our home, but it's worth around £140,000," she said. "Why should we be forced to move and get into debt? We can't afford to do so at our age."
Mr Ingram said that the area had worsened considerably since the re-location programme began.
"This estate used to be OK until they started moving people," he added. "And we have young delinquents at night creating all sorts of nuisance."Added Mrs Vine: "I went on a walkround on the estate recently and some of the houses were in a shocking state. One had the ceiling in the front room caving in because of water damage. It's so dangerous."
The council said it was working hard to maintain the local environment during the period of change and had put plans in place to ensure adequate maintenance of drains and hedges.
"Unfortunately, empty homes do attract unwanted attention," said Mr Brown. "Following concerns from residents, we have amended our approach and are putting in place additional site security and maintenance until larger numbers of properties are vacant and available for demolition."
Published Date: 27 September 2007
Location: Dinnington Guardian
Several of the older residents in the council properties are not being given priority for the bungalows they would like to move to. One resident in her seventies as been turned down on several occasions when she as requested a bungalow on Bevan Crescent. The council say it is because these bungalows are medical priority only. Three years ago the council promised residents that they would get priority and choice when they moved, after the first year they changed their mind and now the choice for the council tenants is limited to areas that they do not want. It is deplorable that a council will not allow a pensioner to move 20 meters into a bungalow on the next street. The only option left for this resident is to move away from the area that they have spent the last 50 years in. THESE ARE NOT THE ACTIONS OF A CARING COUNCIL. Rotherham advertiser 01/05/2008 15:59:55 Resident claims that authority gives safety a 'very low priority'
AN ANGRY resident whose street was littered with asbestos for 16 days has accused Rotherham Borough Council of turning a blind eye to hazards.
Exposed manholes, dangerous fencing and loose bolts on asbestos roofing are just a few problems David Hayward claims to be blighting his estate-where many properties are waiting to be demolished as part of a regeneration scheme.
Mr Hayward, of Newland Avenue on the Tarran Estate in Maltby, said, this week, that the safety of residents was a "very low priority" to the authority.
He slammed: "The council do not seem to consider these to be health and safety issues."
Mr Hayward unleashed his attack after asbestos roof sheeting was blown onto his street and left for over two weeks for children to play with, as previously reported by the Advertiser.
He said that vacant properties without floor boards were easily accessible to vandals or children, several man holes had been left uncovered, damaged guttering was unsafe and fencing was hanging over the footpath.
Mr Hayward claimed said that a council contractor had already fallen through the roof of one unsafe rotting garage.
He said: "All these things are accidents waiting to happen, someone is going to be seriously injured."
He added that while residents were waiting for repairs, barbed wire used for security had been taken down by the council, a move he described as"nonsense.
A spokeswoman for Rotherham Borough Council said: "We understand the difficulties which the regeneration programme at Maltby presents and will continue to deal with issues as effectively as possible.
"A number of manhole covers had been removed and work has been completed to remove any hazards to residents.
"We are anxious to ensure that all properties in the area are secure and that residents live in a safe environment.
"We do not promote the use of barbed wire for health and safety reasons, but we will look at alternative ways to ensure Mr Hayward's home is secure."
The authority said that properties would be inspected on a regular basis during weekly estate walkabouts, by the council, neighbourhood wardens and South Yorkshire Police.
But Mr Hayward said that residents were getting fed-up of being left in the lurch with some waiting up to eight months for repairs, while properties awaiting demolition stood empty.
He said: "The residents have had no apologies from the council, just threats of eviction and compulsory purchases.
"2010 can never seem to find the time to carry out repair work to occupied properties but they can find the time to make my property less secure.
"It would seem that their priorities are to victimise residents instead of helping us."
The council denied this claim and said:"We are continuing to work with individual residents to address neighbourhood concerns, to meet their housing needs and facilitate their rehousing from the area.
"No one has been threatened with eviction and the council is continuing to negotiate with owners to prevent the need for compulsory purchase action."
Date Posted: 01/05/2008 15:59:55
On 02 December 2005 A spokeswoman for Rotherham Borough Council told the Dinnington Guardian "We will not be going down the compulsory purchase order route"
This was coppied from the councils relocation pack which was given to us 12 months ago. As a last resort where the council and you cannot achieve agreement the council may pursue a compulsory purchase order (private properties) or a notice seeking possession (council properties) This sounds like a threat to me and the council will not negotiate. |
|
|