Plans for West Ward Area Flawed

The Great Aycliffe Residents Association (GARA) has taken the lead in a fight to protect residents in the Western Area Regeneration Scheme proposed by Livin.
We will look to the Town Council and our MP Phil Wilson for support as well as the home owners and all tenants adversely affected by Livin’s Option No 3.
Livin put a bid in to the Government for Funds for a regeneration scheme and were awarded  £284,000 from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG).
The aim was to finalise the exercise by April this year and present a Master-plan to the  government to bid for funds for the Regeneration Scheme in the six streets in West Ward.
In the consultation exercise,  three options were given to residents  and attempts were made to get responses from all on the estate.
The estate comprises six streets, part of the West Ward, in Newton Aycliffe. and according to Livin has 571 Houses of which at least 50% are Home Owners, some private landlords and the rest Livin tenants.
Livin concluded it had 3 options:
Option 1  – Improvement to existing homes;
Option 2 – Property improvements and new build  infill;
Option  3 includes: Complete Demolition of existing estate and a new estate layout and design.
For full details of these options go to:   https://western.livin.co.uk/ Or to:    greataycliffe.com  then GARA notice board page.
Cllr Arun Chandran Secretary of GARA said “During my conversations with the Livin/PCP team it became apparent that under Option 3  Livin are planning to reduce the number of Livin Tenancies by 100 on the estate.” Unbelievable when the country faces a housing
“Right from the outset of my involvement, I consistently pointed out that Livin needed to make clear exactly how Home Owners stand and Private Landlords with regard to their Freehold Properties and the financial implications”.
“Last week I resigned as a Champion because Livin had failed to provide any information on this matter.  Meanwhile  I was receiving e-mails and being stopped in the street by residents.
In my email: I said: “It is a fact that cannot be disputed, that Option 3 cannot be supported nor chosen by people as an option, who own their own home, until and unless Livin are able to say what precisely it will do for them.
1. Provide like for like replacement
2. Provide a package which a) protects the value of the Home Owners share of the property  and Livin’s share b) protects the Home Owner from any costs whatsoever   ie no re- mortgage, no rent
3. Many people bought their homes on the basis having no more rent or mortgage to pay and took retirement etc on that basis, and some improved their houses.  They could not now be in a position to be moved out, be provided with a like for like replacement, and  then afford to pay rent or a mortgage where there plans never envisaged it for the rest of their lives.
4. If Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) further down the line were used it would not enable  people to buy like for like replacement where they live or in most other parts of the Town.  It would rob people of what they worked and paid for most of their lives, and in many cases cause homelessness and destitution.
5. If livin were to say provide like for like replacement, but only put a charge on the property  to recover their value on resale that would be a significant progressive move, but it could mean Livin not getting their share of the value of the property for up to 30 years or more.
So any government money would need to cover that funding gap on Livin’s accounts, and not burden existing Home Owners with the cost and debt.
6. Option 3 could be dropped by Livin but that is down to them, and what Agenda they have.  I am neither naive nor stupid not to believe that Livin have their own objectives in mind, and I have no issue with that, but failure to provide any clarity to Home Owners on
7. Option 3   leaves people to draw their own conclusions.  Saying it might not happen till 10 or 15 years down the line is not a good enough excuse for Home Owners and the potential for Blight because of the threat underlining CPO, on house sales or home improvements.
8. I will await further information from yourself (Livin) on the issue re Home Owners on Option 3.  I think 14 days is sufficient, after that time, as Secretary of the Great Aycliffe Residents Association, having already discussed this with the Management Committee we will convene a Special Public Meeting and invite Home Owners, Tenants and Livin.
Losing 100 Livin Tenants from the estate will also cause interest and consternation considering this country faces a housing shortage!.
Arun on behalf of  GARA has made extensive enquiries regarding regeneration schemes around the country.  In every case he found the Social Landlord or Council starts off with a scheme, consults and promises complete like for like replacement to get consents, then submits the scheme to HCLG Dept for Funds and Compulsory Purchase powers, then reneges on the promises and uses CPO powers to force out Home Owners and basically appropriate their Freehold.
Arun said “I have to draw the conclusion that Livin clearly want Option 3. That being  aware themselves, of the consequences for Home Owners  (at least 285 by my count) of Compulsory Purchase re Option 3. Since its inception.  That they appear to have withheld the details of that from residents whilst conducting this exercise of consultation so that they could get to the stage where Option 3 was then finalised in a Master Plan.” Then, if no major objections were received from the residents,  to put the Masterplan Bid in the HCLG Dept/ Secretary of State, and bid for regeneration funds for that Option, and that a Compulsory Purchase Order would be sought if the funds were granted.”
“There is nothing unsound regarding the properties on the Estate that would warrant or justify complete demolition of the whole estate in the public Interest,  nothing to justify sequestration of Home Owners of their properties. Effectively robbing them blind. No justification for reducing Livin Tenancies by 100.”
When people are crying out for Social Housing  the sums just don’t add up for Option 3: Demolishing the estate, rebuild infrastructure, roads services etc,    Build Executive Houses for sale on the Whinlatter area,   build some bungalows,   then build houses on a rent to buy, as well as build to sell.   How do 285 Home Owners figure in this. And if 100 less Livin Tenants will be rehoused on the estate that a loss of rent income annually of approx. £500,000. If CPO is used Home Owners will not get like for like on the Estate or anywhere else on the Town without having to get a new mortgage or to rent.  A lot of home owners bought their houses (soundly built) to not rent or mortgage and would be facing homelessness or destitution for the rest of their lives.
CPO compensation does not allow for like-for-like replacement. Is it Livin’s idea that Home Owners use the CPO compensation to buy part of a new house on the rebuilt estate then force them to pay mortgage or rent for the balance of the value?
This goes against Natural Justice, Human Rights re ECHR and the Public Interest. GARA will support resident rights every step of the way.
Livin have known about the consequence on Home Owners on Option 3 and never said a word as to how they proposed to deal with it.
Livin use York Hill Estate, Spennymoor as an example of a successful scheme, but do not mention how they dealt with Home Owners there.
OPTION 2 SEEMS THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION.
Cllr Arun M Chandran Secretary, GARA. arunmchandran@aol.com
Syd Howarth MBE Chairman  syd@newtonpress.net
Cllr Ken Robson, Vice Chairman
Cllr Bob Fleming, Cllr Derek Atkinson
Eddy Wood, Barry Hutchinson Treasurer
Bill Curtis, Horndale RA, Williamfield RA, Wasps (simpasture) RA, ACORN RA, Neville RA
GARA will keep people informed and will be calling a public meeting soon.
Our MP Phil Wilson said: “I’m aware of the regeneration options for West Ward and I am seeking a meeting with Livin to see how they intend taking any proposals forward and the impact on the local community.’