Wavertree - Edge Hill Areas

Scholar Street

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1765.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1766.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1767.jpg

Mulliner Street

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1768.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1769.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1770.jpg

Underley street

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1771.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1772.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1773.jpg

Cantsfield Street

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1774.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1775.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1776.jpg

My old house on Cantsfield now used as an office of some sort?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1779.jpg

Tunstall Street

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1781.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...n/DSC_1782.jpg

All images taken from the smithdown road end.

I pass those streets twice a day every day going to and from work, and to be honest I'd never noticed how tatty some of them looked, though some of the places on Smithdown Rd itself could do with tidying up, especially all the closed-down shops.

Any indications as to what will happen with the land when they've been knocked down? Lots of bulldozed sites around now with nothing happening.

I now sing In the Ghetto by Elvis when riding past those places.

Smithdown cycles Is great when I need a new Innertube on my bike.

I think they let the land settle for a while, they did that not far from here, then start building work. I dont know the areas in the picture but no doubt it will be for housing and new street scaping, I would hope.
kat:)

Excellent pics again, many thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taffy

Actually Edge Hill !! Let's hope these new houses look better in 20 years than the new ones built just up Smithdown road during the last demolition and rebuild project in this area.

---

I agree. They are horrid. The whole area between Earle Road and Spekeland Road is an example of how not to rejuvenate an area. Earle Road used to be like a continuation of Lawrence Road, maybe slightly rougher but not too dissimilar. Look at it now. Lawrence Road has its problems and the usual over supply of empty shops but it's still full of character and tied into the wider community of south Liverpool. The estate towards the top of Earle Road plus those in the Smithdown Lane area always feel like self-contained no-go areas to me.

One of the worst outcomes of community redevelopment is when you see a wide road that used to have 3 - 4 storey properties on either side suddenly transformed into a wide road flanked by bungalows and semis (with the electricity and gas metres on the outside). It feels wrong and such low population density coupled with low disposable incomes soon sees off any remaining shops. These get boarded up and then after a few years of water damage, demolished and then if such areas are really lucky a Netto/Aldi/Lidl appears. I'm not sure what the next stage is, probably perpetual flatlining until the newbuilds are demolished for the cycle to start all over again.

Oh and this is for all you people running down Smithdown Road!

:064: :008:

This is what I think of Smithdown Road:PDT_Aliboronz_11:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kat2

Chris, people run down areas not councils, yes perhaps funding has been a bit short on street maintainance, with regards to your idea about doing some up cheaply until the time comes up for demolition the only problem with that is the cpo process all over again. Whilst I do feel for those that have lost their homes, the majority opted to take the money and run, I am not sure of all the ins and outs of this project, but certainly in early stages alot of people I spoke too were very keen to get onboard with it. Housing associations are strictly governed by the housing corporation, in order to maintain funding for future projects housing associations are governed by what is termed as the "decent homes standard", this standard is set very high.
kat
:)

---

you are wrong here especially in the Edge Lane Area the houses have been deliberately emptied by the council ina sort of social cleansing, any dereliction is directly the result of a land grab, the people there are being offered £58,000 to move out while the houses they are building on Tunnel Road cost £120,000,

The original CPO which Liz Pascoe fought and stopped was on the grounds that the area was under used, which the High Court said wasnt true, despite this the Liverpool Land and Dev company still claim it was techincality. They now claim the new CPO is because the houses are empty when they have actually emptied them. I contacted LLDC to ask about appealing against the CPO and I was told that I couldnt, which was a total porky pie.

look at my blog and look at this press release to see what's happening to the people by big business Its a rip off

http://stevefaragher.wordpress.com/2...eets-of-shame/

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co....ease241106.doc

I dont think its about social cleansing at all, and your pointing out the cost of new build propertys agains the value of old housing stock which is in a run down area. Most of the residents I came across in the kensington area were in favor a few years back of improving the area. It became a no go spot, no one wanted to move in and so this lead to further derliction problems.
so, how would you resolve things then? do you think that council tax payers should pay council tax money to improve your properties? alot of home owners either abandoned their properties or sub let them in applauling conditions to tenants. New regulations on the letting of properties came into effect this year, they are termed the decent homes standard. With regards to the council letting run down propertys get into a worse condition, thats up to people in the local area to contact the environmental health department, they have a legal obligation to make properties safe.
I am sorry for the odd one or two that wished to stay in that area, but it would seem the majority moved out now whether the going rate of £58-00 was enough for a property of that value in a run down are was fair I cannot really comment.
kat
but it would be interesting to hear your points? for example how would you go about resolving the issues? people have proven that they did not wish to live in the area because so many propertys became derlict. There were many landlords runing sub standard cheap and cheerfull propertys that today would not get passed the new regulations.
or would you just leave the area run down? or do you feel the council should pay to do up your homes, and if so, why do you feel that council tax payers should foot the bill to maintaine private housing stock?
do you think you should have free new houses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kat2

I dont think its about social cleansing at all, and your pointing out the cost of new build propertys agains the value of old housing stock which is in a run down area. Most of the residents I came across in the kensington area were in favor a few years back of improving the area. It became a no go spot, no one wanted to move in and so this lead to further derliction problems.
so, how would you resolve things then? do you think that council tax payers should pay council tax money to improve your properties? alot of home owners either abandoned their properties or sub let them in applauling conditions to tenants. New regulations on the letting of properties came into effect this year, they are termed the decent homes standard. With regards to the council letting run down propertys get into a worse condition, thats up to people in the local area to contact the environmental health department, they have a legal obligation to make properties safe.
I am sorry for the odd one or two that wished to stay in that area, but it would seem the majority moved out now whether the going rate of £58-00 was enough for a property of that value in a run down are was fair I cannot really comment.
kat
but it would be interesting to hear your points? for example how would you go about resolving the issues? people have proven that they did not wish to live in the area because so many propertys became derlict. There were many landlords runing sub standard cheap and cheerfull propertys that today would not get passed the new regulations.
or would you just leave the area run down? or do you feel the council should pay to do up your homes, and if so, why do you feel that council tax payers should foot the bill to maintaine private housing stock?
do you think you should have free new houses?

---

the truth is seven years ago all sorts of promises were made to the people of Kensington in that they were promised ato be consulted on the new houses, this hasnt happened and Bellway the developers wont build any hosues until the place is cleared which means there is little chance that the people who lived there and want to stay in Kensington will be the ones who buy the new houses, for a start off they wont be able to afford them and the houses being built on Tunnel road are tiny especially for the price, people really havent had a choice about moving out. And any profit that is being made is going into the pcokets of Bellway and LLDC. The answer would have been to set up a communtiy social enterprise called a Community Land Trust,

http://www.communitylandtrust.org.uk/

any profit which would ahve been made would have been re-invested in the community.Council tax payers are currently paying about a grand a year on security for each house, the council is loosing millions in lost council taxt and rents, not a good deal is it-diplaced and destroyed communities, fat cats getting fatter and dodgey little expensive houses.

Steve, you havent really said how you would resovle these issues? Yes, naturally the developers wish to maximise land available by building more energy efficient smaller homes, that cost less to heat.The layout that exists was probably fine years ago but doesnt reflect todays modern day way of liveing, eg, car parking spaces. I was under the impression that some of the homes did come under the right to buy a kind of joint partnership? maybe this changed I dont know. But it makes common sense yes that the prices of new build propertys are going to cost more money, it may also improve council tax banding, which has always been a problem in Liverpool due to its large derliction spots. I thought some of the housing was going to be social housing too? (housing association to you and me)?
I know several years back when we did a consultation alot of the residents were very keen to get onboard. This consortium that you point too why dont they buy some of the housing stock back? and do it that way??
But, i seriously thought their was social housing. Its a difficult call really, I mean the council needs to improve an area and thus perhaps raise the council tax banding or at least bring an area back into use so as not to have so much redundant vandalised stock. I think starting again really is the best way forwards, better layouts taking into account the fact that there are more car owners? New housing generally is cheaper to run and has a higher thermal value which translates into more affordable fuel bills.
Like I have posted I am sorry for the few that wished to remain in there homes, but my recollection of the place was that there was alot of boarded up houses and high vandalism, plus according to health statistics for that area, the housing stock was called into question in how it was affecting that populations health. They also looked at other issues such as employment, and crime before coming to the conclusion that the area needed a re jig to make it a more pleasant place to live.
I am not sure where you get a profit margin from? social housing cannot make a profit, most social housing associations usually carry the logo not for profit, meaning if they make a profit they do not qualify for grants from the housing corporation. The paradox of all this is sustainability and building homes that people want, and dont vandalise, my understanding is that there are a number of partner agencys offering social housing in that area as it is.
the right to buy under shared ownership has also existed for many years so not sure why the link you provide seems to point to it in the way that it does, every housing association tenant has the right to buy unless they are in listed propertys or in a scheme where it wouldnt be practicle.
Buying land that doesnt increase in value i cannot see how that would work
kat
:)

But it makes common sense yes that the prices of new build propertys are going to cost more money,

They won't last anywhere near as long as the old ones though,the plder houses are solid, built to last. I,ve been in one bellway home as a visitor, I could hear the person next door using the loo,they are may look nice (that depends on what you call nice)but they will cost a hell of a lot more to maintain.

let's say for example the council homesteaded the hosues ie sold them very cheaply to a community land trust, the CLT could borrow money (Charity bank are wiling to lend on this type of venture I have checked this out with this bank) and the houses were renovated the cost of purchase and renovation would be around the £50k mark, the houses would have a market value of circa £100,000+.

They could then be sold affordabley for £80,000 to local people or people who want to live in Kensington, there could be conditions that buyers cant resell except to the land trusts for the first five years, after that there;s a sliding scale of repayment of profit from sales to CLT thereafter up to the tenth year. The Ecology building society will arrange mortgages on schemes like this

This deters speculators buy to let etc etc.

The CLT always owns the land (which should rise in value) and makes £30k per house form the sales to be reinvested in other housing or socially relevant schemes. the wealth is produced in the community and stays there.

The CLT website cites many examples in the UK and further afield of this type of scheme doing just this.

The local housing association are trying a similar scheme with a 25% discount on half finished houses but they area still costing £75,000! Although the profit from this scheme doesnt go back into the communtiy and the hosues in question are in an area that was deemed unsusainable and had been CPOd until the council changed their mind.

If absolutely nothing had been done to the area (edge lane CPO) it would have become sustainable and recovered just through market forces, ie the market has risen all over Kensington, empty derelict boarded up houses are going for £70000 all the time, so even the £58,000 is derisory.

The councill seem to be hell bent on the edge lane CPO and seem to not have a plan B especially its very strange the way given the market has improved they dotn seem to be able to be flexible, funny innit?

the market has been improved like all things due to the speculation that the area is up and comming thats only natural, before this the value was not so high, I have seen simlar instances over here on the wirral where people get wind of an area that is ripe for development and then they buy into the derlict propertys waiting to make a killing, fortunatly wirral council are years ahead in their planning and usually sell the land well in advance to avoid problems like the edge lane experience. The idea around what your links go to is nothing new housing associations have been doing this for years but there is very strict critria, for example if they refurbish old housing stock, they cannot sell it on or demolish it (until recently) until the projected life of the housing stock has ceased. All housing stock has a "shelf life" this is between twenty and thirty years, after this time housing stock may be considered not viable for renewal, due to failure of components or a change in the building regulations/ EU guidance, (such as the decent homes standard) once housing stock is beyond its twenty/thirty years then a feasbility study is created to see how much it would cost to bring the property up to standard, taking into account (sustainablity) and the fact that housing associations are limited to what they can charge for rental or resale (due to governmental contractual obligations in obtaining the grant (housing corp regs) I think rental is 1% over r/p/i. thats why generally housing associations seldom make profits. why doesnt the scheme your talking about work of a simpler idea of letting home owners keep their homes but assist them in bringing them up to a decent standard? through some form of shared finance scheme? incidentally if home owners let their housing stock fall into very bad condition over here on the wirral, the council would issue a letter advising them to bring it up to standard, if they failed to bring their home up to a safe standard then the council would take them to court and do the works themselfs and charge back or recover the fees of the works by selling the propertys to recover the loss.
kat:)

iCLTs could worked with shared finance but alas and alack the LLDc and the council have scattered the majority of the people.

At the moment the council cant really consult people because they've got rid of them all..A CLT would by definition have to reflect the views and opinions of the community. The people were orginally offered an Eldonian type scheme, they were told that the area would be done up piecemeal, ie ten people moved out, houses demolished then the same people moved back in the new houses (houses they were supposed to have had a hand designing the spec of), as it now stands Bellway wont touch the land till every last house is vacant.
The person I know who is moving out to Walton has jsut had enough, she was a chair of one of the residents assocaition, helped set up the credit union and still runs it and until all this happened was committed nad dedicated to the area, she didnt want one of the houses on tunnel road as it is only 13 feet from front to back and cost 120k 62k short of the 58 k she's been offered. Only a very small proportion of the new houses on tunnel road are for rent, as with the minto street developments, by your argument the cost of the new houses should be affordable as they are not being built by specualtors are they? but they arent so the area is socially cleansed in this processed, not enough social housing and not enough affordable hosues to buy
It will be interesting to see how many people come back to the area who sued to live there before. The people there have been sold short, considerably short.


Housing Assocaitions do make profits, they jsut dont have share holders, ahve you seen Riverside's HQ, Berrybridges new offices, Cobalts new offices,