It all looked so simple back in 2003 when John Prescott launched the sustainable communities plan. Row upon row of dead or dying two-up, two-downs in the Pathfinder areas of the North and Midlands were to be grubbed up and carted off, seed money was to be sown and the economic base of the communities revived. Then, in the fullness of time, thriving districts of information-age workers would be brought forth, many living in smart new semi-detatcheds with two cars in the drive and two kids in an equally smart and new school.

Now the powers that be seem to have lost their appetite for destruction. A good indicator of wind direction is provided by the House of Commons鈥� ODPM select committee. This had been notably gung-ho about demolition, but its April report voiced doubts about the programme. This trend has not been lost on the pathfinders themselves. As their political support has begun to erode, and as organised resistance grows from local people, councils and the heritage lobby, some are cutting back on the numbers of homes they plan to knock down. That emotive phrase 鈥渟lum clearance鈥� is being muttered by the great and good. Demolition has gone from simple gardening to a full-on political struggle.

East Lancashire has emerged as the exemplary pathfinder, and the region鈥檚 people are unlikely to benefit from what is happening. The argument over demolition is likely to be a long one because, at bottom, the positions are speculative and subjective. What effect will demolition have on Darwen鈥檚 economy in 10 years鈥� time? How does that compare with someone鈥檚 attachment to the house they were born in? Or the nostalgia felt by some groups for housing they would not, themselves, choose to inhabit?

What we can be confident about is that while the debate continues, the region will continue to suffer from pernicious economic blight, and the challenges faced by regeneration specialists will get tougher.

The player that can really make progress now is the government. No doubt the new regime will reappraise the regeneration programme, but whichever way you cut it, the fact remains that social wellbeing depends on economic activity, and the people who do the high-wage jobs that are needed do not live in two-up, two-downs. Go figure.

Source

RegenerateLive