Insp Report Blackburn HMR

CPO Report to the Secretary The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay House

2 The Square
of State for Communities and Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
GTN 1371 8000
Local Government
by R Ogier BA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Date 19 July 2006

Communities and Local Government
HOUSING ACT 1985 (PART IX)

ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981
APPLICATION FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN

FRANKLIN STREET No. 2/HANNAH STREET/STAR
STREET/SUNNYBANK STREET/REDEARTH STREET (DARWEN)
COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2005
Inquiry opened on 14 March 2006
File Ref: HNW/5286/8/112

CPO Report HNW/5286/8/112
File Ref: HNW/5286/8/112

BOROUGH OF BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN FRANKLIN STREET No. 2/HANNAH
STREET/STAR STREET/SUNNYBANK STREET/REDEARTH STREET (DARWEN)
COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2005
• The Compulsory Purchase Order was made under section 290 of the Housing Act 1985 and the
Acquisition of Land Act 1981 by Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council on 12 September 2005,
in respect of 152 dwellinghouses and added land consisting of dwellinghouses, the sites of former
dwellinghouses and other areas of open land, and a house and doctor’s surgery.
• The Order is related to the Franklin Street No. 2 (Darwen) Clearance Area, the Hannah Street/Star
Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas 1 & 2, the Sunnybank Street (Darwen) Clearance Area and the
Redearth Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, declared by the Council on 16 October
2004, 16 September 2004, 16 September 2004 and 15 July 2004 respectively.
• The purposes of the acquisition are for undertaking or otherwise securing the demolition of buildings
in clearance areas and securing a cleared area of convenient shape and dimensions and the
satisfactory development or use of the cleared area.
• When the inquiry opened there were 13 objections outstanding mainly on the grounds that the
Council were bullying people out of their homes and generally disregarding the wishes of the local
community, the house surveys undertaken merit further scrutiny, many houses were not unfit, the
proposed use of the land for an educational academy was inappropriate on road safety grounds, there
was a need for affordable housing close to the town centre, residents had understood that their homes
would be repaired, the houses had heritage value, the process of making the Order had not been fair
and open, having to move house would put residents in a disadvantageous financial position and
seriously affect their human rights. 6 objections were withdrawn.
• The inquiry sat for 8 days, on 14-17 March, 7 and 12 April and 24-25 May 2006. House inspections
took place on 22 and 23 March 2006 and a general inspection of the Order area and surroundings on
23 March 2006.
Summary of Recommendation: That the Order be not confirmed.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND STATUTORY FORMALITIES

1. Dissatisfaction had been expressed on behalf of some objectors when the inquiry venue was
first announced, that Blackburn Town Hall was an inappropriate place in which to hold the
inquiry. This view was again put forward on behalf of Objectors at the opening of the
inquiry. The reasons advanced included the distance between the Order area and venue and
particularly the time taken and cost of travel between Darwen and Blackburn, the cost of car
parking in Blackburn town centre, and the availability and suitability of venues in Darwen
to consider such a controversial local issue.
2. The Council indicated that it had not been possible to identify a suitable venue in Darwen
available for the whole of the four consecutive days the inquiry was programmed to run.
There was a good choice of public transport between Darwen and Blackburn which did not
make it unreasonable or inconvenient for the inquiry to be held in the Town Hall. The
Council had before the opening of the inquiry indicated that it did not consider licensed
premises or a place of worship to be suitable venues for the inquiry.
3. I responded that I understood why the objectors felt that a Darwen venue would be more
convenient and affordable for them, and also desirable given the strength of local feeling.
Nevertheless I concluded that no suitable venue had been firmly identified that was
available for all the allocated days of the inquiry and that whilst less convenient for Darwen
residents, it was not unduly onerous to have to travel from Darwen to Blackburn Town Hall,
Page 1
given the choice of transport modes and the proximity of the two towns. I therefore decided
that the inquiry could continue in the arranged location.
4. At the opening of the inquiry Mr Michael Neal confirmed that he was the owner occupier of
11 Redearth Street (reference 19) and stated that had submitted an objection to the Order
which appeared not to have been received by the Government Office for the North West.
He asked to be heard at the inquiry. The Council accepted Mr Neal’s identity and I
indicated that I would treat Mr Neal as a statutory objector for the purposes of the inquiry
and this report.
5. The Convening Notice was read, and the Council confirmed that it had complied with all
the statutory formalities in connection with the Order. No submissions were made about
these matters, other than in connection with the inquiry venue as already reported.
6. The Council confirmed that it wished to have the Order modified, by the deletion of certain
‘added lands’ as shown on a revised Order Map (Map B), as follows:
(1) Most of reference 164, except for a small walled-in triangle of land adjoining 21
Redearth Road (reference 139). Reference 164 is described on the Order Schedule as
‘landscaped land’.
(2) Reference 165, described in the Order Schedule as ‘house and doctor’s surgery’.
(3) Reference 166, described in the Order Schedule as ‘house’.
The Council indicated that it was promoting the compulsory purchase of these parcels of
land under a different Order.
THE ORDER LANDS AND SURROUNDINGS
7. The Order as submitted relates to 168 parcels of land or land and buildings immediately to
the south of Sudell Road, Darwen, a short distance to the south of the town centre. The
Order area as submitted extends to 2.65 hectares, of which 1.65 hectares are within
Clearance Areas and 1 hectare ‘added lands’. The requested deletions from the Order
would reduce the area of ‘added lands’ to 0.53 hectare, resulting in a total Order area of
2.18 hectares. The Order area which forms a large part of what is known locally as the
Redearth Triangle is bounded to the south west by Redearth Street, to the south east by
terraced housing on Redearth Street and a partially-developed children’s playground
adjoining Hannah Street, to the east by a small trading estate in Brunswick Street and
vacant land adjacent thereto, and by the Manchester to Blackburn Railway line in cutting.
8. The area to the north of Sudell Road is part of the designated and extended Darwen Town
Centre Conservation Area (also referred to in closing submissions as the St Peter’s
Conservation Area, map at Document 33). Land to the south west of Redearth Street is
occupied by a retail food store with its car parks and an employment area based around
India Mill, which with its tall chimney is the town’s most recognisable landmark.
9. Land in the Order area falls generally from the north east to the south west, and is mainly
characterised by long terraces of stone houses, as illustrated in the aerial photograph in the
Save Britain’s Heritage booklet Pathfinder (Document 66). A number of the original
houses in the area had been demolished before the subject Order was promoted (Document
26 map at Appendix 1), but further demolitions of properties already acquired by the
Council were taking place during my inspection tours.
Page 2
10. The open land (reference 164) most of which the Council wishes to have excluded from the
Order if confirmed includes the site of a former Primitive Methodist Chapel at the junction
of Redearth Street and Redearth Road, and its burial ground. The other properties of which
the Council seeks exclusion are a detached house and doctor’s surgery at the junction of
Redearth Road and Sudell Road (reference 165) and a detached house, No. 2 Sudell Road
(reference 166).
GENERAL CASE FOR THE BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BOROUGH COUNCIL
[ACQUIRING AUTHORITY]
11. The Order area as now proposed comprises 152 dwellings, mainly 2 bedroomed terrace
houses built before 1919 as mill workers’ homes. The area has been subject to incremental
clearance over the last 50 years (Document 26 Appendix 1). This clearance is likely to have
been necessitated by structural problems in those dwellings. There is a history of coal
mining within the Order lands and a large culvert which runs across the Order area. These
conditions have resulted in poor ground conditions for dwellings.
12. The area was part of a General Improvement Area (GIA) declared in the 1970s to improve
the housing stock. The intention of the GIA was to extend the life of the properties for up
to 30 years as required by the Housing Act 1969. That period has now elapsed. Individual
householder alteration works led to further deterioration over time, including the use of
heavy concrete tiles and different types of flashing, leading to movement and water ingress.
The deterioration has also been influenced by a general lack of investment, lack of
maintenance and poor quality workmanship.
13. Prior to the making of the Order, there was low demand for properties within the Order area
demonstrated by low market values of less than £15,000 (Document 26 Appendix 2), and a
high turnover of occupation of the properties. Only some 50% are owner-occupied and of
the privately rented properties, some 63% have not been occupied by the same household
for more than 2 years. There is also evidence of anti-social behaviour in the area, as
referred to in the Objection by Mrs Halligan.
Policy background
14. The Order land is shown as lying within a Primary Residential Area in the Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Local Plan (Document 22), reflecting the existing use of the land at the
time the Plan was prepared. The Joint Lancashire Structure Plan identifies Darwen as a
main town. The Plan advocates that new development should be located within urban areas
and situated where it will contribute to and support their role as key centres for public
transport, employment and the provision of services.
15. The Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS) (Document 24) concentrates new
development in areas most in need of regeneration, including Regeneration Priority Areas
(RPAs) such as East Lancashire. It requires physical enhancement, significant regeneration
and economic restructuring in RPAs. New development should utilise previously
developed land and ensure a wider range of complementary services to meet the needs of
the population. The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) sets the framework for economic
development in the Region. Key themes are investing in business and ideas, in people and
communities, in infrastructure, in education, skills and employment and in image and
environment. A current review of the RES highlights the economy of East Lancashire for
regeneration.
Page 3
16. The Darwen Town Centre Strategy to 2010 (TCS) (Document 19) was developed by the
Town Centre Partnership with key stakeholders, and set out a vision for improvement and
investment within Darwen Town Centre. It is based upon the concept of six themes ‘The
Six Towns of Darwen’, including a Living Town, a Working Town, a Thriving Market
Town, an Historic Town, a Town Set in the Countryside and an Inclusive Town. The
Darwen Town Centre Masterplan consultation draft issued in February 2006 continues these
themes and when adopted, will guide investment in the Town Centre.
17. ‘Elevate’, the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Initiative Pathfinder, was launched in April
2004 to address the problems of low demand and housing market failure in East Lancashire.
Its 15 year strategy is outlined in the Central Darwen Development Framework (the ADF)
and seeks to create sustainable neighbourhoods (Document 18). The ADF acknowledges
that housing intervention alone will not resolve the problems of economic decline, multiple
deprivation, poor health, low educational attainment and increasing crime. Central Darwen
has been selected as an area for intervention on this basis, to reverse market decline and
raise its desirability as a place to live.
18. The objectives of the Central Darwen ADF include making Darwen an attractive choice for
people setting up home, creating a mix of employment opportunities, ensuring that
educational provision is accessible and meets the needs of all residents, improving the
physical environment, tackling problems of crime and antisocial behaviour and promoting
Darwen as a place to live, work and invest. The Order area is one of four sub-areas
identified within the ADF, and identified as an early priority for action (years 1 to 3). The
sub-area is identified as suitable for employment development, and in particular for a high
quality office development (Document 18, last page). Because of the condition of the
housing stock and the proximity of commercial uses, the Order area is considered no longer
capable of supporting residential use. It is suitable for alternative development.
Unfitness
19. The Council report relating to the declaration of the GIA (Document 26 Appendix 4)
identified that some 56% of properties in the GIA declaration area were in gross, major or
moderate disrepair, and referred to the generally poor condition of properties west of the
railway line. Works promoted under the GIA programme extended the life of the properties
for some 30 years, but the properties are now back in a state of serious disrepair.
20. The Council in 1999 commissioned Marchaven Services Limited to conduct an external
house condition survey of the majority of their pre-1919 housing stock. The relevant
extract from the survey (Document 13) noted apparent structural movement and various
elements of disrepair, to the extent that many of the dwellings within the Order area failed
to meet the requirements of the Housing Act 1985. The area was identified as a priority
area because it was by far the worst housing area in Darwen.
21. As a result of the surveys of individual properties undertaken by David Adamson &
Partners Ltd (Adamson) between January and March 2004, the Council determined that
most properties in the Order area were statutorily unfit within the meaning of section 604 of
the Housing Act 1985. However the grounds of unfitness alleged by the Council do not
include structural stability, which is no part of the Council’s case. The Council alleges that
the properties are primarily unfit due to their being in serious disrepair. Notwithstanding
this, much of the Objectors’ evidence relates to the alleged structural condition of the
properties, rather than to whether they are in serious disrepair. The surveyor from
Bradshaw Gass and Hope instructed by Mr Huggill to inspect the houses on Star Street
Page 4
stated that the purpose of his report was ‘to comment particularly on the current structural
condition of the properties’ (Document 44). Mr Brian Clancy found the properties he
inspected to be structurally sound (Document 81).
22. It does not require a structural surveyor to determine whether a property is unfit on other
section 604 grounds. It was put to the Council’s Environmental Health Officer that because
she was not a qualified structural surveyor, she should not have undertaken fitness
inspections. Such an allegation is without merit when the alleged ground of unfitness is
serious disrepair rather than structural instability.
23. Annex A to Circular 17/96 Private Sector Renewal: a Strategic Approach states that serious
disrepair can arise from one item of disrepair or from the combined effects of two or more
items. It is necessary to consider the cumulative effect of the various items of disrepair in
any one property in order to determine whether they amount to serious disrepair when taken
as a whole. The evidence of unfitness by which it was determined to declare the Clearance
Areas was primarily that provided by Adamson, an independent, professional firm with
relevant experience.
24. Adamson undertook surveys specifically under section 604, and all their material findings
are documented in the survey forms. They concluded that all properties in the Clearance
Areas were unfit for the reasons stated. Details of Adamson’s employee qualifications were
requested at the tender stage and found acceptable. The company’s appointment was made
after the due tendering process and a bid the Council found acceptable. The tender was
dealt with in the same way as others, and found to comply with the Council’s requirements.
25. Although no representative of Adamson appeared at the inquiry, considerable weight should
be given to its surveyors’ findings, validated by the Council in August 2004. Further
surveys undertaken by Council staff in January 2006 independently reached the same
conclusions. Each survey undertaken reached the same conclusions over the unfitness of
the various properties on the ground of serious disrepair. There is no substantive evidence
against those survey findings. Insofar as Objectors have disputed the grounds of unfitness,
they have relied to some extent upon the reports compiled by Mr Clancy, as did Save
Britain’s Heritage and Mrs Fishwick.
26. Mr Clancy did not carry out a section 604 assessment, and did not purport to have done so.
He considered Adamson survey findings in isolation and insofar as he deemed the
properties he had seen to be ‘not unfit’, no material weight can be attributed to his findings,
as they are not based upon the correct test. His work identified whether particular disrepairs
identified by Adamson existed, and then gave an approximate untested costing for repairs
on an individual property basis. The test applied by Mr Clancy was whether the identified
repairs required were of such a nature as to make them uneconomic and if so that, and only
that, would justify demolition. However the determination of unfitness is not an assessment
of the cost of repairs, which is not referred to anywhere in Annex A of Circular 17/96, but
rather an assessment of whether any of the statutory grounds are made out. Mr Clancy
maintained under cross-examination that his view that the properties were not unfit would
remain even if the statutory grounds of unfitness were made out, if the defects could be
remedied at reasonable cost.
27. Instead, costings have been properly taken into account by the Council at the appropriate
stage as part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment (NRA). Mr Clancy acknowledged
that he had not taken the NRA into account. It is inappropriate to consider costings for
property repair on an individual basis. It may be relevant at the stage which determines the
Page 5
most appropriate course of action for costings to be considered as part of group action, as
entire blocks would need to be repaired to an acceptable standard.
28. Mr Allen Walker sought throughout the inquiry to identify costs for his son’s property (8
Redearth Street, reference 5). On the final day of the inquiry he submitted documentation
relating to his request to the Council for information under the Freedom of Information Act
(FIA) (Document 40), but did not submit the Council’s response which was accompanied
by the requested information. In any event, that information is not relevant to the outcome
of the inquiry, as it is the group repair costings which are relevant to the NRA analysis.
Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment (NRA)
29. The Council undertook a detailed NRA of the Order area in accordance with the standard
model for such purposes. The considerable data inputted into the NRA model included
monetary information, details of the condition of properties, the views of local residents and
environmental and social factors. The ADF Groups had undertaken a series of public
consultations during May and August 2003 on the range of options available, including
open days, exhibitions and displays in accessible public places. The options presented
included clearance, group repair, selective clearance and ‘do nothing’.
30. Mr Osman for the Council emphasised that the Council had followed the most up-to-date
model available to it in 2003. The model was produced in conjunction with the then Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), and used by officers trained by planning consultants
DTZ Pieda in its use. Many of the questions put to Mr Osman related to the model used
and its methodology. It was not for the inquiry to determine the appropriateness of the
model itself. No evidence was adduced to show that the Council failed to follow the
methodology of the model. There is no reason why the Council should not have carried out
the assessment itself, provided it was undertaken by properly trained officers. The majority
of local authorities carry out such assessments ‘in-house’ where resources are available and
training has been undertaken.
31. The assessment undertaken was very robust and included a range of exercises by way of
sensitivity analysis. For example, a change in the rating of the heritage value from 0 to 1
did not materially change the outcome. The Council’s approach in using the model using
figures that have been risk-assessed was in line with guidance (Document 31). The range of
the sensitivity analysis beyond risk assessment was critical in making the right
recommendation. The clear outcome was the recommendation of clearance as the
preferable option.
32. The Council additionally undertook a separate economic assessment which compared direct
group repair with clearance at various intervals. On just a cost basis, the costs for clearance
were found to be significantly below the costs for group repair (some £1.5 million cheaper).
Because the houses in the Order area are mainly of solid stone construction, group repair
would involve the walls to be taken down completely in many cases, having to be rebuilt
from foundation. The properties would have to be shored up and supported internally to
prevent collapse. The residents would have to be decanted while these works were
undertaken. The Council experience of group repair costs is significant given that at any
one time there are about 200 properties subject to group repair. The clear recommended
option was therefore clearance both from the NRA and the economic assessment. In all
these circumstances the properties have been correctly identified as statutorily unfit and the
appropriate course of action is clearance.
‘Added lands’
Page 6
33. Even if it were found that a small number of properties identified by the Council as unfit are
not so, that is not a reason either to exclude such properties from the Order or to decide not
to confirm the Order. The properties are all in groups of terraces. The retention of one or
two fit properties in such a group, as in the case of the identified ‘added lands’, would not
then enable the effective redevelopment of the site. All the land is required for the site’s
redevelopment, and any additional fit properties would then be properly included as
additional ‘added lands’. Given the extent of unfit properties on the site, it would be wholly
inappropriate to leave individual properties, as they would effectively preclude
redevelopment and thereby sterilise the site’s future use.
34. 32 parcels of ‘added lands’ are included within the Order as now proposed by the Council.
References 28, 158, 159 and 163 are mid-terrace houses surrounded by Clearance Areas.
To allow them to remain within an otherwise cleared site would sterilise areas of the site
and inhibit its development. It would prevent the securing of a site of convenient shape and
dimensions to enable its satisfactory redevelopment.
35. The other ‘added lands’ all adjoin Clearance Areas. Most of them are fit houses within
blocks where the majority are unfit, including 17 Redearth Street (reference 32, objection
considered in paragraphs 181 to 184 below). Exclusion of these properties would preclude
the satisfactory redevelopment of the site as a whole. Others are sites of houses already
cleared, including reference 98 used for residential parking. In order to satisfactorily
redevelop the site and ensure a proper layout, all such areas require bringing into
comprehensive ownership to enable redevelopment to occur. All the ‘added lands’
therefore fall within the circumstances of section 290(2) of the Housing Act 1985.
Future use of the Order lands
36. Many Objections express concern over the current intention to use the Order lands as part of
a site for the proposed new Darwen Academy (‘the Academy’). Outline planning
permission was granted for this development in December 2005 (Document 36), and an
application for approval of ‘reserved matters’ is being actively pursued by the developers.
However use for the purposes of the Academy is not the basis on which the Order has been
made. The specific compulsory purchase powers of the Housing Act 1985 have been used,
rather than those of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Irrespective of the site’s
future use, all requisite statutory elements for the Order have been made out. The majority
of the dwellings are unfit for human habitation within the meaning of section 604 of the
1985 Act, and clearance has been found to be the preferable option. The remaining land is
required to enable satisfactory redevelopment of the site for any likely future use.
37. In terms of future use housing is regarded as inappropriate, particularly due to the ground
conditions. The land was intended to be used for employment generating uses when the
original ADF was adopted in 2003, but subsequently proposals for the development of a
new Academy for Darwen have come forward. The Order land is regarded as suitable for
such a use. Only part of the Academy would be able to be accommodated on the site. The
remainder would be on land currently the subject of a further CPO made under the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990. That particular future use is therefore not guaranteed.
Whether that use or a future employment use is to be developed on the site, the ‘added
lands’ are required for such redevelopment.
38. The Council has not sought to address the planning merits of an Academy, as this was not a
matter for this inquiry. The Council’s case is that irrespective of the future use of the site,
clearance is required to remove the unfit dwelling houses and to enable the site’s
Page 7
appropriate redevelopment. Whilst issues over the appropriateness of the Academy

proposal appear to be at the heart of some objections, they are not relevant to the decision as
to whether this Order should be confirmed.
Suspicion of improper motive
39. No one has made any formal allegation that the Council has promoted the Order out of an
improper motive, although suspicions of that nature were expressed by or on behalf of some
objectors at the inquiry. The contention that the Council made the Order to facilitate land
assembly for the site of the proposed Academy was not advanced by anyone as a ground on
which the Order ought not to be confirmed.
40. Such a suggestion if it were to be made, is entirely unsubstantiated on the evidence. It is
acknowledged that the present intention is for part of the Academy to be developed on the
Order lands. The Council is entitled to have a future use for the land; it would be unusual
for that not to be the case. Nevertheless it is on the basis that the majority of the dwellings
in the Order area are statutorily unfit that the Order has been made. Mr Osman’s evidence
is that the Academy has had no influence whatsoever on the decision to declare the
Clearance Areas and pursue the Order.
41. Mr Osman indicated during the inquiry that he was unaware until March 2004 of the
possibility of the Academy being developed on this site. Nor was Mr Allen Walker aware
of anyone in the Council having that knowledge prior to that month. Yet by March 2004,
significant consultation had already taken place over clearance (August 2003), the Adamson
survey work had been undertaken and the NRA had been carried out identifying the
recommended option for the area. It was only between Easter and summer 2004 that Mr
Ryden was requested to identify potential sites of a certain size for an Academy. Even at
that stage, the Redearth Road area was only one site identified for possible further
consideration.
42. The ‘added lands’ would be the same if the intended future use were not an Academy. The
Order area is wholly insufficient for an Academy. That would require additional land
which is to be pursued via a separate Order pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act
1990. The fact that the Council is requesting removal of some of the ‘added lands’ from the
Order indicates that the Academy is not the motive for this Order. There is therefore no
evidence to support any suggestion that the Council has acted out of an improper motive.
Human rights
43. Both Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Right to respect for
private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention (Protection of
property) are relevant. As with any CPO relating to dwellings, the Order would result in an
interference with those rights. There is a human element involved in any CPO, particularly
when the acquisition of homes is proposed. The Objectors’ concerns over their personal
circumstances are fully acknowledged.
44. However, such interference is justified in the circumstances of this Order. The statutory test
of unfitness is satisfied and clearance has been found to be the most appropriate option.
The regeneration of the site and area is required in the wider public interest. The Council’s
actions are entirely in accordance with the legislation, and are proportionate. Compensation
will be paid according to the statutory tests. Alternative accommodation is being sought
and made available for all residents. There is no breach of the particular rights referred to.
Page 8
45. Article 6 of the Convention (Right to a fair trial) was also raised by some Objectors at the
outset of the inquiry. The judgements in the Alconbury series of cases established the
consistency of the inquiry process generally with Article 6. Each Objector was clearly
given a fair hearing at the inquiry, being able to present their cases in full, cross-examine
the Council’s witnesses and produce such documents as they saw appropriate. All the
representations, both oral and written, will be taken into account. There has therefore been
full compliance with Article 6.
Heritage issues
46. A number of references have been made at the inquiry by Objectors to the significance of
the dwellings within the Order area in heritage terms, such as to justify their retention.
There is no evidence that the buildings have any such recognised heritage value. There are
no listed buildings within the Order area. The area does not fall within a conservation area.
The St Peter’s Conservation Area was recently extended to include properties abutting the
Order area, but English Heritage (EH) never suggested it would be appropriate to extend it
to include any part of the Order area. EH officers specifically visited the area to consider
the heritage of the dwellings being considered under group action. The heritage value to be
put into the NRA was determined as 0, namely ‘no heritage value recorded by English
Heritage’, was assessed in consultation with EH.
47. Comparisons were made by some inquiry participants with the circumstances of the
Housing CPO at Whitefield, Nelson (reference HNW/5293/8/67). However, each case must
be considered on its own merits. It is apparent that the circumstances at Nelson were
materially different to those of this Order. The letter to Ms Natasha Jones from EH dated
31 January 2005 points out that EH’s involvement in Nelson was exceptional, because the
area contains a remarkably complete settlement of mid-nineteenth century workers’ housing
including the original church, mill and school. EH’s research showed that it was the earliest
and best preserved housing settlement in Nelson, with a strong townscape character. EH
have not taken the same stance in relation to this Order, and have declined to become
involved, despite Ms Jones’ express request that they do so (Document 30).
48. The evidence for Save Britain’s Heritage was limited by time constraints affecting that
organisation’s witness which did not permit full testing of his evidence by cross-
examination. The weight that can be given to that evidence is therefore reduced. Mr
Wilkinson had not read any Council evidence, and had only seen part of the Adamson
survey material. Many figures and assertions in the evidence were unsubstantiated.
Council’s conclusions
49. At the close of the inquiry some 130 of the 152 dwellings in the ‘revised’ Order area had
been acquired by the Council by agreement. 40 of them have been demolished in the
interests of public safety. If the remaining dwellings are not acquired compulsorily, they
will remain on site. This would preclude the future redevelopment of the site which would
effectively become a sterilised ‘brownfield’ site in the urban area. The problems that led to
the declaration of the Clearance Areas would remain, and probably worsen over time.
50. Given the unfit condition of most of the dwellings in the Order area, the results of the NRA
and other factors, the appropriate course of action is clearance and redevelopment. The
Objectors have not raised any substantiated ground which would justify rejection of the
Order. The Council therefore requests that the Order be confirmed, subject to the exclusion
of plot references 164 (most), 165 and 166.
Page 9
THE OBJECTIONS
[INQUIRY APPEARANCES]
LANDS WITHIN THE CLEARANCE AREAS
Reference 44 – 26 Sudell Road

Mr Nino A Sciamberella and Mrs Anna Sciamberella (owner occupiers)
Case for the Objectors
51. The Objectors have lived in their house for 20 years, and object to the clearance of the
houses in their community. The Council has never told the truth about its motive for
seeking to acquire the Order land – members wished to acquire the land for the purpose
they had assigned to it. Some members of the Executive Board did not agree that the
Objectors’ house was unfit. A considerable sum of money has been expended in
refurbishment and repair works to the house. The Objectors feel secure living in the area,
the conditions in which have only deteriorated a small amount in recent years. If they had
felt insecure, they would have moved out years ago. Mr Sciamberella and his wife see his
brother and his wife who live nearby at 34 Sudell Road, every day.
Response by the Council
52. The property is a mid-terrace house with a two storey offshoot. The house was found in the
original inspection to be unfit by reason of serious disrepair. Out of a terrace of 13
properties, there were at the time of the inquiry only 6 occupied properties.
53. The survey carried out in January 2004 (Document 35) identified that on the front elevation
the roof covering, and guttering and one or more access doors required repair. On the rear
elevation UPVC gutters, fences walls or gates and paths or paved areas were identified as
requiring repair and the external wall finish and one or more lintols and an outbuilding,
replacement. On the offshoot the external wall finish was identified as requiring
replacement, downpipes and soil vent pipes as needing repair. There is reference on the
rear elevation of the offshoot to some movement between a lintol and cill at first floor level,
and minor foundation failure recorded. Internal defects are mainly focussed on the need for
repair of parts of some wall and ceiling surfaces, although some penetrating damp was
recorded in the bathroom, living room and front and back bedrooms.
54. A re-inspection was arranged for 10 January 2006, but access was not obtained. An
external survey was carried out which confirmed evidence of the serious disrepair on the
external elevations. A photograph taken on that day indicates damp patches on either side
of the upper windows in the front elevation (Photograph 47 on page 25), slight movement in
the stone gutter (Photograph 48 on page 25) and the effects of the discharge of water onto
the paved area beside the ground floor bay window (Photograph 46 on page 24). The
photographs also illustrate some disturbance at roof level between 26 and 28 Sudell Road.
Description
55. A mid-terraced house forming part of a substantial block on the south side of Sudell Road.
There are minor defects in the roof covering and guttering, although no obvious defect to
Page 10
any external access door was observed. There is a dip in the guttering to the rear elevation.
The gutters to the rear offshoot are UPVC, but appear to function adequately. The soil vent
pipe appears adequate, although some staining would suggest a leak from the bathroom
waste pipe. The rendering on the left wall of the offshoot is uneven. Internally most rooms
are well decorated and appointed and there was no obvious evidence of defects arising from
the damp referred to in the 2004 survey or of materially defective wall or ceiling surfaces.
Finding
56. Having regard to the reasons alleged by the Council, under section 604 (as amended)
Reference 44 is not so far defective in the matter alleged as to warrant classification as
unfit.
Opinion
57. Although there is evidence of some external disrepair, neither the severity of the defects nor
the number of individual items of disrepair could reasonably be said to constitute serious
disrepair. Reference 44 is not therefore appropriately retained in the Hannah Street/Star
Street (Darwen) Clearance Area 2
Mr F Pietro Sciamberella and Mrs Anna R Sciamberella (owner occupiers)
58. The Objectors have lived in their house for 18 years, Mr Sciamberella having moved
permanently to England from Italy in 1980. He and his wife object to the clearance of the
houses in their community. The decision by the Council to build an Academy on the Order
land would split his family community, his brother and his wife only living 4 doors away.
59. The consultation process had been a disgrace; the Council had been forced to consult by the
residents. After the issue of the Council’s letter of 5 August 2004, 1400 signatures were
collected in a day from those opposed to the way the Council was proceeding. The
community has been shattered by the Council’s action, including its many elderly residents.
Home owners appear not to have been able to influence events. Housing associations and
private landlords had been allowed to bring in new tenants. No. 38 Sudell Road was due to
be sold for £87,000, but the purchaser withdrew. The offer of compensation does not
reflect the housing market in Darwen.
60. It is accepted that some repair work needs to be done to the Objectors’ house. However
their current priority is their son, and his intentions of going to University.
61. The property is a mid-terrace house with a rear two-storey offshoot. The house was found
in the original inspection to be unfit by reason of serious disrepair and dampness. The
survey carried out in January and February 2004 recorded that on the front elevation, the
roof structure, roof covering, chimney stacks, gutters, external wall structure (with the
comment ‘drop at bay’), external pointing, access door and fences, walls or gates were in
need of repair and the roof flashings in need of replacement. The rear elevation was
recorded as featuring the roof covering, UPVC gutters, fences, wall or gates and paths or
paved areas as in need of repair and the external wall finish and lintols as needing
replacement. On the rear offshoot the roof structure and covering, UPVC gutters, soil vent
Page 11
pipe and left side wall finish and pointing were in need of repair and downpipes and the rear
and right side external wall finish in need of replacement.
62. Internal defects included two windows and some floor, wall or ceiling finishes needing
repair or replacement including crumbling plaster, a large hole in the ceiling of the stairs
and landing, and noted damp or mould growth in the living room and bathroom, penetrating
damp in both bedrooms. There is a general comment on the internal survey form ‘damp and
mould throughout the house’.
63. A re-inspection was arranged for 10 January 2006, but access was not obtained. An
external survey undertaken from the street confirmed evidence of disrepair on the external
elevations, but as no internal inspection was possible, a conclusion could not be reached as
to dampness. Photographs taken on that day show cracked rendering, an exposed gas boiler
flue projecting through a hole the rendering around which has not been adequately made
good, movement in the roof slates, poor use of paint on the rear elevation, inadequate and
defective rainwater goods and an exposed solid stone wall
Description
64. This mid-terrace house forms part of the same extended block as 26 Sudell Road. The roof
displays a dip in the middle, and has some rising slates. Part of the chimney flashing is
missing. The access door has no weather board. The roof at the rear has slipped or rising
slates, cracking to the wall finish and a rear yard which is uneven in places. The roof of the
offshoot has a slight sag and rusting cast iron downpipes and soil vent pipe. The surface of
the right side external wall is unfinished.
65. Internally the hole in the stairs/landing ceiling appears to have been plugged – there is no
ceiling rose. Some signs of damp were detected, probably associated with the original hole.
Further signs of penetrating damp were evident on the front wall of the living room. There
were also some slight signs of penetrating damp in the back wall of the dining room. One
of the windows in the back bedroom was in need of replacement, but appeared still to be
functioning. There were signs of damp in the front bedroom.
Finding
66. Having regard to the reasons alleged by the Council, under section 604 (as amended),
Reference 2 is unfit for human habitation because it fails to meet the following
requirements: repair; dampness; and by reason of that failure is not reasonably suitable for
occupation.
Opinion
67. The property has rightly been represented as unfit.
Reference 9 – 16 Redearth Street
Mrs Christine Oldfield (tenant)
Case for the Objector
68. It is not true that the majority of the houses in the Order are unfit for human habitation.
Independent survey reports prove otherwise1. The majority of Darwen residents do not
oppose the Academy in principle, but rather its location. The proposed site for the
1
Inspector’s note: It is understood that Mrs Oldfield is referring to the survey reports prepared by Mr Brian Clancy
(Document 82).
Page 12
Academy so near the town centre would not be a safe location for school children in road
safety terms. Affordable housing rather than a state-of-the-art Academy is what is needed
in Darwen. Mrs Oldfield’s landlord sold 16 Redearth Street about a month before she
submitted her Objection to the Order, but the Council still at the time of the inquiry had not
found her an acceptable place to live similar to where she is presently living. Mrs Oldfield
argues that there is nowhere in Darwen that has a house of similar size to No. 16 in an area
as popular as The Redearth Triangle which is also safe for children. The Council is
destroying a perfectly good estate for their own self-gain, and the people of Darwen are
losing out.
69. Mrs Oldfield’s landlord had initially been supportive of her position, and she had
endeavoured to persuade them to carry out some external repairs. By the time of her
appearance at the inquiry she had been trying to find alternative accommodation for six
months. She was informed in May 2004 at a meeting with Councillor David Holland that
her house would be demolished. The land was already earmarked for a specific project.
The Council’s Executive Board were not present at the inquiry. Residents had moved out
after having been made to sign a paper to the effect that they did not object to the Order.
70. There was nothing wrong with the Redearth Triangle area. A lot of people who had moved
out would move back, given the opportunity. In seeking accommodation which provided
like for like accommodation, Mrs Oldfield would have to take out an equity loan. She had
rejected two alternative houses offered by the Council because they were unsuitable. She is
caring for an 84 year old woman dependent on oxygen.
71. The property is an end-terrace house with a two-storey offshoot. The house was found in
the original inspection to be unfit by reason of serious disrepair and dampness. The owner
who does not object to the Order has agreed the value of the property.
72. The survey carried out in January and February 2004 recorded many items of disrepair on
the front elevation – the roof covering, chimney stack, gutters, external wall finish and
pointing, the access door and paths or paved areas requiring repair and the roof structure
needing replacement. There is reference to a dropped crack from the wallhead to the
ground beside the door. On the rear elevation the roof covering needs repair and the roof
structure, wooden gutters, external wall structure and finish, fences, walls or gates, paved
areas and outbuildings are recorded as requiring replacement. Wall drop to the gable corner
is recorded. On the gable wall, the surveyor recorded a severe lean out of the vertical, and
several areas of bulge. The external wall structure and finish needed replacement. It was
also recorded that the entire rear annex (offshoot) had moved, with UPVC gutters needing
repair and down pipes and soil pipes replacement. On the right hand side of the annex a
crack was evident between the first floor cill and the ground floor lintol.
73. Internally, the 2004 survey recorded defects to walls and ceilings in the stairs and landing,
kitchen, bathroom and to the living room, dining room and bedroom floors, and to windows
in the kitchen, bathroom, living room, dining room and bedrooms. A medium degree of
dampness is recorded generally, due mainly to mould growth and condensation in the hall,
kitchen, bathroom (severe), living room, dining room and main bedroom, with severe
penetrating damp in the kitchen.
74. The property was re-inspected on 10 January 2006, when it was found to be unfit under
serious disrepair, dampness and inadequate facilities for the preparation and cooking of
food. The inspection confirmed that the property suffers from severe structural problems,
Page 13
with evidence of movement, the gable wall leaning towards the right. Photographs 31 (page
16, lower) and 38 (page 20) show movement between the lintol of the front door and cill of
the window above, No. 32 (page 17) the disrepair in the rainwater goods, and No. 34 (page
18) the gable wall crack, attributed to inadequate weather protection. Other items of
disrepair are shown in Photographs 36 and 37 (page 19). The location of the cooker is
dangerous and the extent of mould growth in the kitchen makes that space not easily
cleanable. There is general condensation and water penetration throughout the property.
Description
75. The alleged grounds of unfitness of this end-of-terrace house are not disputed by the
Objector. The roof has a noticeable sag when observed from front and particularly the rear.
The crack to the right of and above the front door is clearly evident. The structure and
finish of the rear wall are in poor condition. The roof contains some raised slates. The
capping to the rear boundary wall is partly missing. The crack in the gable wall is visible.
The lean of the annex identified in the 2004 survey is noticeable. Guttering and rainwater
goods need replacement.
76. Internally, there is cracked plaster in the hall. The cooker is located very close to the
kitchen door. The walls of the kitchen require resurfacing, particularly the outer one.
Severe mould and penetrating damp was found in the bathroom, with a pronounced crack in
the corner of one wall. The walls of the bathroom all require attention. A window in the
dining room requires replacement. The air in the dining room felt very moist. Many floors
in the house are springy when walked upon. There is a pronounced crack (vertical and
horizontal) in one corner of the front right bedroom, and a thinner but longer crack in the
opposite corner. The cellar was visited and displayed a very damp atmosphere.
Finding
requirements: repair; dampness; facilities for the preparation and cooking of food; and by
reason of that failure is not reasonably suitable for occupation.
Opinion
78. I am satisfied from the evidence of the Council and my inspection that the house is subject
to serious disrepair and significant damp, and that the location of the cooker in the kitchen
is potentially dangerous and its surfaces difficult to maintain in a clean condition. The
Objection property has therefore correctly been represented as unfit.
Reference 52 – 15 Hannah Street
Mrs Margaret Halligan (tenant) and Ms Catherine Terzic (occupier)
79. Mrs Halligan has lived at 15 Hannah Street with her daughter, Ms Terzic, for 8 years.
During that time they have experienced problems with nuisance neighbours, drug users and
dealer, burglars and vandalism. They managed overcome these difficulties, finally with the
support of their landlord, the Northern Counties Housing Association. They started to get
good neighbours and to settle in their home. They and their neighbours were on the way to
regaining the sense of community that had been lost for so long. The Order has now
damaged that process, and all the residents’ efforts have been in vain.
Page 14
80. The Objection is also based on opposition to the Darwen Academy proposal, as Mrs
Halligan and Ms Terzic were led to believe that the houses in the area were being renovated
and the area regenerated with some new housing built for existing residents by Elevate East
Lancashire. This is not the case. The Redearth Triangle area is not extensive enough to
accommodate such a large enterprise, compared with the school it is to replace, Moorland
High School. The area is already congested enough, and it would not help local businesses
owing to the time it takes to travel from one end of the town to the other – people who
might otherwise have patronised local shops will go elsewhere.
81. There would be no on-site playing fields as there are at Moorland High School. Ms Terzic
attended that school, which was a good school with varied activities. It is not understood
why the school is failing. If this is due to lack of financial resources, the Council has got its
priorities wrong and should spend less on street art and sculptures and more on school
computers. Shadsworth High School in Blackburn was successfully ‘rescued’ from its
failing status, on the same site as the original school. The same could be done with
Moorland High School.
82. The property is a mid-terrace house, found in the original inspection to be unfit by reason of
serious disrepair. The tenant does not dispute that the property is unfit. The owner has
agreed compensation and the tenant has accepted alternative accommodation. A survey was
carried out in January/February 2004 when the elements of the front elevation requiring
repair were listed as roof structure and covering, chimney stack and gutters, and on the rear
elevation roof structure and covering and the external wall structure. Additionally on the
rear elevation items which needed replacement were listed as gutters, the external wall
finish, an access door, paths or paved areas and an outbuilding. Internally cracks in the
plaster of two walls in one of the first floor rooms were noted.
83. The property was re-inspected on 20 January 2006, when access was given to the ground
floor. This confirmed the evidence of disrepair. Photograph 2 (page 1, lower) depicts the
coping stones missing from the rear yard wall, No. 3 (page 2) slight movement under the
front bedroom window and fading paintwork to the rear elevation. The discolouration on
the rear wall would suggest dampness in that wall (photographs 5 and 6, page 3).
Description
84. A number of defects to the fabric of this terraced house were observed. They include slight
damage to the flashing on the chimney stack, the rusting of brackets holding the wooden
guttering on the rear elevation, very slight bowing of the back wall, repair needed to the
outbuilding and missing capping stones on the back yard wall. The most obvious defect is
the deterioration in the surface of the rendering to the back wall, which as the Council
suggests could be due to water penetration.
Finding
85. Having regard to the reason alleged by the Council, under section 604 (as amended),
requirements: repair; and by reason of that failure is not reasonably suitable for occupation.
Opinion
86. Although the number of repair defects is not large, I consider the unsatisfactory finish to the
rear rendering to be sufficiently severe on its own to justify the house being declared unfit.
Page 15
Reference 137 – 4 Sunnybank Street

Mr Thomas K Brian (owner occupier)
87. Mr Brian moved into 4 Sunnybank Street with his daughter in 1998. He was compelled to
borrow £8,000 to cover current debts and undertake some work in the house. He was in
dispute with his estranged wife over the house, and endeavoured to save further money in
order to finish work at the house. He then received notice from the Council of the intended
demolition of the house because of its unfit condition. He and his neighbours in Sunnybank
Street are being bullied out of their homes. The surveys of the houses need to be re-
examined, because his house and many surrounding it have nothing wrong with them. All
he and the residents are asking for is a fair deal. He would struggle to find the necessary
money to acquire like replacement accommodation.
88. The property is a mid terrace house. All other buildings in the terrace have now been
purchased by the Council and are vacant. The inspection carried out early in 2004 recorded
severe roof sag and moderate roof spread and wall bulge. Items recorded as needing
replacement included on the front elevation, the roof structure and covering, the chimney
stack, flashing, gutters and the external wall structure, finish and pointing. The house was
described as the worst property in the block. Replacement items needed in the rear
elevation were recorded as the roof structure and covering, gutters, downpipes, soil vent
pipe, external wall structure, finish and pointing, access door and fencing, wall or gate. The
conditions of roof sag and spread and wall bulge were recorded as moderate.
89. Internally items which the surveyor considered needed replacement included the finish of
walls in the stairs/landing, floor, ceiling and wall finishes and a window in the kitchen
where severe penetrating damp was observed, wall and ceiling finishes and a window in the
bathroom, floor and wall finishes and a window in the living room, with some repair
required to or replacement of the floor and wall finishes and some windows in the bedrooms
and replacement of the attic room floor and wall and a window, in which room severe
penetrating damp was recorded. It is also recorded that apart from disrepair and dampness,
the house was unfit on grounds of inadequate provision for lighting, heating and ventilation
and unsatisfactory facilities for the preparation and cooking of food.
90. Although a re-inspection was arranged for 10 January 2006, access was not obtained. An
external survey of the property confirmed evidence of serious disrepair on the external
elevations; without access the remaining items of unfitness could not be confirmed.
Photographs 58-59 and 62-65 record some of the conditions.
Description
91. No internal inspection of this house could be obtained. The roof of the house has a
pronounced sag. There are cracks in the rear elevation wall. The wall to the rear elevation
requires total re-rendering. The back door and at least some of the windows require
replacement. The rear guttering is in poor condition. Other conditions have not materially
changed from those described by the Council and featured in its photographs which include
the absence of proper ventilation to the kitchen. Despite his general comments, the
Objector has not challenged any of the specific findings of unfitness alleged by the Council.
Page 16
Finding
requirements: repair; dampness; lighting, heating and ventilation; facilities for the
preparation and cooking of food; and by reason of that failure is not reasonably suitable for
occupation.
Opinion
93. The property has correctly been represented as unfit.
Mr Michael Neal (owner occupier)
94. Mr Neal has lived at 11 Redearth Street for nearly 40 years, and has raised his family there.
When the prospect of regeneration was first mentioned in relation to the area, the emphasis
was on modernisation of the houses. There was no mention of an Academy. It was only
when a meeting was arranged with the Council after residents had received a letter stating
that their dwellings were unfit for human habitation that it was indicated that an Academy
was going to be built.
95. It should be noted that some of the 2004 survey forms have been altered, including
instances where the conclusion on a property recorded as ‘fit’ had been replaced by ‘unfit’.
It was quite apparent that the Council’s intention all along was to acquire the Order
properties for the purposes of an Academy; thus it was a ‘done deal’. Any defects at the
Objection property are easily remedied; when a surveyor visited the house he spent only
about 4 minutes in his examination2.
96. The property is a mid-terrace house. The survey carried out in January/February 2004
recorded that the property was unfit by reason of external disrepair. On the front elevation
the roof covering, chimney stack, gutter and down pipe was recorded as requiring repair,
and the chimney flashings replacement. On the rear elevation repair items included the roof
structure, gutter, down pipe and soil vent pipe, fences, walls or gates and paths or paved
areas. The roof covering was recorded as requiring replacement. So far as the rear offshoot
is concerned, repair was needed to the roof structure and covering, gutters, the left side
external wall structure, finish and pointing, with flashings and down pipes requiring
replacement. The flashing was recorded as a timber wallhead bargeboard with a cement
fillet. On the right side wall of the offshoot the wall structure and finish and the access door
needed repair. Movement on the wallhead was detected and ascribed to foundation failure,
and the source of damp.
97. Internal defects requiring repair or replacement were recorded as including wall finishes in
the hall, stairs and landing, dining room, front bedroom where penetrating damp was
2
Inspector’s note: the survey forms for 11 Redearth Street (Document 35) show 4 visits or attempted visits by the
surveyor – 14:20 on 12 January and 10:30 on 14 January 2004 to conduct the external examination, and an
afternoon visit on 18 February and a morning visit on 19 February 2004 (year presumed) to conduct an internal
survey and complete a social survey questionnaire.
Page 17
identified and in the back bedroom, a window in the entrance hall, the ceiling finish in the
back bedroom and in the bathroom, where mould growth or condensation was identified.
98. No additional survey was undertaken nor photographs taken at the beginning of 2006, as the
Objection property had not at that stage been identified as such.
Description
99. The house has a slate roof which is generally evenly laid, although there are some lifting
slates at the rear near the chimney stack, which has mortar flashings. The flashing would
probably benefit from renewal, although it shows no obvious signs that it is permitting
water ingress. The stone gutters at the front are lead lined but display no significant visible
defects; the plastic gutters and down pipe at the rear appear functional. The stone flagged
path at the rear of the house is uneven in places but the boundary wall and gate are sound.
100. The mortar flashing marking the join between the rear offshoot and the main house is
uneven in places, and a cast iron down pipe is rusting. On the left side wall of the offshoot,
the brickwork needs pointing and/or rendering. The right hand side wall is clad in Tyrolean
render. The door in this wall has no weatherboard and does not appear to be functioning
efficiently. I was unable clearly to identify whether there was continuing movement at the
wallhead as identified by the surveyor in 2004, or the extent to which this was contributing
to conditions of penetrating damp. Internally, there are a number of minor repair defects,
and potential signs of damp were detectable as blemishes in wall surfaces below the dining
room window and in one upper corner of the front bedroom.
Finding
101. Having regard to the reasons alleged by the Council, under section 604 (as amended)
unfit.
Opinion
102. As reflected in the findings and justification comments of the 2004 survey, the internal
defects play only a small part in the disrepair account relating to the whole Objection
property. Even the total defects affecting the property are not such as to be either
individually or due to their combined effect so severe and/or extensive that they present a
risk to health or safety, or cause serious inconvenience to the occupants of the house.
Reference 19 is not therefore appropriately retained in the Redearth Street (Darwen)
Clearance Area 3.
Mr Adrian A Walker (owner occupier)
103. The Council has been less than honest in the manner in which it has sought to secure land
for the building of a City Academy which, despite denying that motive, was its reason for
making the Order in circumstances in which it was stated that the land had not been
designated for any specific purpose.
104. The Council employed unqualified surveyors to inspect Order properties. Their work was
seriously flawed and sometimes inaccurate or seriously exaggerated. An independent
Page 18
qualified surveyor3 has reported that nearly all properties he examined are fit for habitation
or require only minor repairs that could be undertaken at a comparatively small cost.
105. The proposed Academy is to be built in an inappropriate location and will pace inordinate
pressures on the area in traffic and access terms, having regard to its location so near the
Darwen town centre. A considerable number of students attending the Academy will be
living outside Darwen. There is only one arterial road, the A666, which serves the town.
The Council could use the land on which Moorland High School currently stands; a
structured redevelopment on that site is the best option if an Academy is to be built. Similar
ventures in other parts of the country have proved to be ill-conceived.
106. It is understood that the Council is adopting profiteering tactics by promoting a compulsory
purchase scheme, acquiring land at minimal cost and redeveloping the existing educational
site for housing purposes, thus profiting at the expense of existing home owners. The
Council is acting in total disregard of the existing settled community. Many residents will
not be able to find comparable owner/occupied properties in the Darwen area, and will be
obliged to relocate elsewhere at inordinate cost or be forced into rented accommodation.
107. The Objection property was acquired by Mr Adrian Walker in 2000. Local searches
confirmed that there were no encumbrances or planning schemes affecting the property.
The house was structurally sound, although it did require refurbishment. Mr Walker
removed all of the interior plasterwork and all timberwork except main joists and similar
members. He then refurbished the house by replastering, reflooring and replacing all the
woodwork. He fitted a new bathroom suite and tiled the bathroom. He fitted new units into
the kitchen. The house is weatherproof – there is no water penetration or dampness. An
injection damp proof course has been installed in certain areas. Submitted photographs
illustrate the work done (photographs A to H and J).
108. The Council has failed under section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 to carry out periodic
inspections of the housing stock in their area. The full options were not seriously
considered – no costings were done for the repair of individual houses in the proposed
Clearance Areas. The impression is therefore given that the Council allowed the area to
become run down so that it could acquire the Order properties for minimum cost. The
Council made a decision in September 2004 that it wished to have the Order area cleared of
its housing. No documentary evidence has been produced by the Council in terms of
recorded delivery receipts or similar verification that all residents in the area were invited to
a crucial meeting to deal with the issue.
109. There are grave concerns as to the accuracy of the survey forms, and because some of them
have been altered in places. No witnesses from Adamson have been called to justify the
changes. No explanation has been offered by the Council as to why alterations were made
to the forms, and who made them. Most of the crucial comments made on the forms were
in relation to external disrepair, and no specification had been made as to what manner of
external repair was required to rectify alleged defects. The review of the survey material
by Mrs MacAlister was not objective; the Council were writing the properties off too easily.
No court of law would accept the survey documents. Yet they are crucial to the Council’s
case for promoting the Order.
3
Inspector’s note: it is understood that this is a reference to Mr Brian Clancy.
Page 19

110. The Objection property is a mid terrace house with a two storey offshoot. The 2004 survey
found the property unfit on the grounds of serious disrepair. It recorded that the front
elevation of the house had dropped along its entire length, there being a newly filled joint
with 10 Redearth Street. Moderate foundation failure and chimney failure were noted.
Defects requiring repair included the roof structure and covering, guttering (Photographs 15
[page 8] and A), the external wall structure and pointing, fences, walls or gates and paths or
paved areas. The chimney stack and flashings (Photographs 15 [page 8] and C) were
recorded as requiring replacement. On the rear elevation a minor roof sag was noted, with
the timber gutter (Photograph 14 [page 7]), fences, walls or gates and an outbuilding
requiring replacement and the roof structure and covering and external wall finish, repair.
Internally the only repair defects mentioned were the floor of the entrance hall and that of
the stairs or landing
111. Although a re-inspection was arranged for 18 January 2006, access was not obtained. An
external survey confirmed evidence of serious disrepair to the outside of the property.
Description
112. 8 Redearth Street is a mid-terrace house located where the terrace undergoes a noticeable
change in its alignment, with corresponding asymmetrical changes to the roof profile and an
apparent dipping in the front elevation towards No. 6. The stone chimney stack is an
unusual shape but its pointing appears robust and displays no obvious signs of requiring
significant repair. The front wall has a slight bulge at first floor level. The front stone
gutter has breaks in it which appear to allow some leakage onto the headstones below.
There is a more pronounced gap in the gutter where it adjoins that to 10 Redearth Street.
113. The roof on the rear elevation is necessarily distorted in its overall profile by the change in
alignment in the terrace block, and is laid with slates of a different size to the neighbouring
house 6 Redearth Street (see Photograph 23 page 12). These circumstances result in an
awkward marriage of slates where the two houses join (Photograph 22 page 11 bottom),
resulting in a potential risk of water ingress into the attic. The wooden rear guttering is
rotting in places. ‘Tide marks’ on the rendered surface of the rear elevation and addition
suggest that these defects permit water to run down the walls (see also Photograph 20 page
10). The rear yard gate requires replacement. There is no outbuilding.
114. The interior of the house has been refurbished and decorated to a good standard. No
significant defects were observed. The attic was viewed and it is noted that some of the
roofing felt has been renewed. It appeared to be dry.
Finding
115. Having regard to the reason alleged by the Council, under section 604 (as amended)
unfit.
Opinion
116. As reflected in the findings of the 2004 survey, internal defects play an insignificant part in
the disrepair account relating to the whole Objection property. The unusual roof profile, the
manner in which the roof covering joins that on the neighbouring house and defects in the
front and rear guttering offer some potential for water penetration that in future could affect
the fabric of the house. However, the present defects are not such as to be either
Page 20
individually or due to their combined effect so severe and/or extensive that they present a
risk to health or safety, or cause serious inconvenience to the occupants of the house.
Reference 5 is not therefore appropriately retained in the Redearth Street (Darwen)
Clearance Area 2.
Reference 84 – 15 Star Street
Miss Jenette Wood (owner occupier)
Housing market factors
117. Nationally, owner occupation of housing rose from 4 million in 1953 to nearly 15 million in
2003. This was accompanied by a growth in mortgages from 32% in 1981 to 43% in 1991.
It was thought that this tend was levelling off by 1997, but this was not the case. The
socially rented sector saw a large growth in the 1950s and 1960s reaching a peak in 1981,
since when there has been a steady decline. Nevertheless, there has been a significant
increase in Registered Social Landlords’ (RSL) property holdings, due to transfers from
local authority ownerships. In 2003, RSLs’ representation in the market was 18%. There
was a significant decline in the private rental sector in the twentieth century from over 70%
down to 9% in 1988, 1981 being the year of significant change. Since 1988, there has been
a growth to 11% in 2003.
118. The housing market in the Redearth Triangle area of Darwen never collapsed. There was
low demand in the late 1990s caused by too many new houses being built (the housing
stock in the town increased by 25% in 25 years). Yet from 2000 to 2006 there has been a
600% increase in prices. This is not evidence of market collapse, nor low demand. The
whole philosophy of sustainable communities, urban renaissance and the repopulation of
town centres strongly suggests that the Order houses should be renovated, adapted and
made useful, for now and into the future. The work referred to by Mr Osman relates to the
market 5 or 6 years ago. Strategies must be open to the rapid changes in the market place.
119. So far as the East Lancashire Housing Market Survey is concerned, the housing market in
Darwen has followed neither national nor local trends. There has been no detailed local
analysis of the housing market, for otherwise the outcome would have been different. The
Council has used deprivation information at Super Output level, but no submission has been
made of work covering historical prices, rates of sales, length of time on the market, means
of sale or market activity. Such omissions should be compared to a simple survey of local
estate agents covering price ranges over recent years (Document 55(18)).
120. In 1999/2000 many areas of Darwen and other Lancashire and Greater Manchester towns
had houses valued at under £15,000, for particular reasons. The Council’s evidence on this
does not include any detail of individual properties. House prices for Redearth Street
between 2000 and 2004 are available on the internet (Document 55(18)). In areas of
Burnley and Liverpool some house prices are now still at £20,000. There is no evidence of
the ‘visible survey’. Terrace houses sold at auction in the late 1990s appear to have been
taken in part exchange by house builders unable to sell the new houses, a consequence of
the release of too much land for new build in too sort a time.
121. There has been no analysis by the Council of voids between property rentals, or as a result
of renovation, the process of sale, or legal issues. Voids are more likely in older properties
than in modern estates, because some older properties require renovation. It is long term
vacancy rates that matter. Unsold housing is a feature of the south as well as the north of
Page 21
England. The Council has failed to clean streets, prevent fly tipping or maintain roads and
paths, aspects of the area mentioned in responses to the 1999 Marchaven survey.
122. Work undertaken for the Objectors has identified a mean stay length for the Redearth Street
area of 5.4 years. The town has seen decreasing crime levels over recent years. The Police
confirm that Redearth has been no different from any other central Darwen area as regards
crime. Economically, Darwen has moved from being above the national unemployment
rate to being below it. Income may be below national rates, but so are living costs due to
affordable housing. It is not known what is meant by the Council’s statement that the
economy in Darwen is in a state of transition, since economies are always in transition. A
housing market does not necessarily need to have intervention to ensure long-term
sustainability. The interventions may well themselves inhibit sustainability, by creating
overheating and unaffordability.
123. Mr Osman for the Council appears to be suggesting that the Council is seeking to
restructure a complex and unpredictable housing market. The market has moved on from
the oversupply of new housing and apparent related oversupply of terraced housing in the
recent past. In the last years there has been a healthy market for affordable older properties.
There has not been a situation that in Mr Osman’s words ‘that required the Council to act’.
There is nothing sinister in having private rented accommodation which may be taken up by
short stay residents – it reflects a particular sector of the market. Statistics that relate to the
late 1990s are not relevant, because the market has changed considerably since that time.
Area Development Framework (ADF) and NRA method
124. Former Circular 6/904 and Circular 17/96 referred to the need to involve stakeholders in the
process, including residents. Mr Osman for the Council admitted that the ADF did not
involve residents at the formulation stage. Rather the Council put out a document which
was not accessible to many people. The NRA details how option creation and appraisal
should be carried out, but it is clear that the guidelines have not been followed.
125. Option appraisal was dealt with through the NRA process. Mr Osman for the Council
confirmed that the NRA was carried out between November 2003 and March 2004. The
‘area approach’ is understood to relate to the envisaged Clearance Areas, excluding the
‘added lands’. It appears that the Council’s Executive Directors had overall charge of the
process.
126. The ‘desired outcomes’ within which the NRA was undertaken relate to the functioning of
the housing market and long-term sustainability. The local market in Darwen was therefore
a primary driver in assessing the future of the Redearth area, that is, the removal of over 150
dwellings so as to reduce the availability of affordable, pre-1919 terraced housing. The
options had been fully worked and assessed for public consultation by August/September
2004.
127. The Council’s evidence is that the option ‘do nothing’ would result in terminal decline. No
evidence is put forward by the Council as to the nature of any social problems that might
contribute towards that decline. The suggestion that there had been negative equity and
abandonment stands in sharp contrast to the level of investment that had been committed in
4
Circular 6/90 Local Government and Housing Act 1989: Area Renewal, Unfitness, Slum Clearance and
Enforcement Action. The circular was withdrawn by Circular 17/96 Private Sector Renewal: A Strategic Approach,
itself subsequently withdrawn in a large part by Circular 05/2003 Housing Renewal.
Page 22
some of the properties such as those owned by Mr Woods (11 Redearth Road), Mr Waters5,
Ms Lea Jones (8a Sudell Road), Mr N Sciamberella (26 Sudell Road), and in extensive
reproofing, Warm Front grants and security grants. The RSL had also put in significant
monies for new windows and other improvements.
128. The Council’s estimation of the costs of clearance run at £62,483.87 per dwelling, with
group repair at £72,096.77 per dwelling (Document 31). The group repair figure is based
on the need to rebuild or replace the outer skins of the dwellings. The reasons for unfitness
represented by the Council hardly include any under the heading of structural instability.
The picture of the dropping of many of the exterior walls and the need to excavate
foundations beggars belief. The independent survey relating to 15 Star Street (Document
44), where the whole street is assessed for structural stability and long term sustainability,
comes to no such conclusion. Neither does the evidence of Mr Brian Clancy. This
evidence is submitted by qualified structural engineers. The reference in Mr Osman’s
evidence to the need, given the presence of solid walls, for exterior walls to be taken down
completely and rebuilt from foundation level is a misrepresentation of reality.
129. It is accepted that a cleared site may have a greater value than an uncleared one, and that by
virtue of clearance there has or would be an accumulation of value. However the increase
in value accruing from the redevelopment of the land by the erection of a public building
may only become apparent when that development is cleared and the site is redeveloped
again. At present the NRA indicates that the site is valued at £1,000 x 155 (assumed
number of dwellings), that is, £155,000. This would appear very meagre.
130. Mr Osman for the Council confirmed that the NRA was undertaken between November
2003 and March 2004. The new NRA model and guidance notes were not issued on disc
until August 2004. It can be concluded therefore that the Council must have been using the
1992 NRA Guidance Manual (Document 56). It appears that DTZ Pieda, the consultants
appointed by the Government to review and revise the NRA process and guidance, did not
carry out training in the new method until December 2004. There is reason for suspicion
that the Council sought to evaluate the options for action quickly, in order to get a ‘result’.
131. On the supposition that the Council used the 1992 methodology, copies of floppy discs of
that method were obtained on behalf of the Objector, and the model run using the Council’s
figures. The exercise included the calculation of the non-risk assessed values, the running
of the risk-assessed component and evaluation of the level of sensitivity. The exercise
using the Council figures showed that the preferred option should have been the
refurbishment of the houses. The Council’s conclusions were based upon a ‘worst case’
scenario, not the most likely outcome. The NRA could not have informed the declaration of
the Clearance Areas.
132. The Council’s application of the NRA model should be tested against the process outlined
in Figure 2.1 of the Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment Guidance Manual 2004. In this
table, nine steps which make up the NRA process are stated. The first step is that the local
authority should understand the wider context. The local housing market appears to have
been artificially depressed by new speculative building around the year 2000. The whole
trend of housing in the UK since then has been upward, and it is difficult to understand why
the Council could not have foreseen that. Step 3 relates to the selection of a team. The
Council attempted to set up a team, and to make decision rules (2004 Manual, paragraph
5
The identity of ‘Mr Waters’ is not clear; this could be a reference to Mr Adrian Walker (8 Redearth Street).
Page 23
6.16), but failed to ensure that all its data was transparent, relevant, accurate and based on
clear and reasonable assumptions.
133. The Council produced tables intended to show the probability of some event, multiplied by
the cost of that event. However, no supporting evidence was provided to justify the figures
used. There are also no figures for commercial redevelopment risks, even though there
must be some chance of the project failing in some way.
134. The Council’s model generated four scenarios – landscaping, industrial units, new build and
renovation. The 2003 ADF stated that the preferred option was clearance and the
development of offices (Document 18, last page). Yet this scenario was never entered into
the model, and it is not known why. The involvement of Mr Aldridge, one of the Directors
of the Darwen Academy Trust and the ‘town centre’ Academy proposal was known from
2001, and the Governors of Moorland High School were informed about the proposal in
2003. It is therefore inexplicable why the Academy option was not put into the NRA.
135. In the assessment of each option, the four values in pounds sterling are converted to a
number from 0 to 1. This appears to have been done assuming the values correspond to a
normal (bell shaped) distribution, with the values being the deviation from the mean
(Document 52(26) page 2 item [7]). There are two main difficulties with this approach.
Firstly, the figures used are from different experiments or populations. Secondly, the
quadrupling of the fourth value (V4) hardly affects the net present value (NPV)
assessments. This seems unreasonable given the importance of budgets in these schemes.
136. Furthermore, the best option figures are those calculated without, rather than with, risk
assessment. When this is done, the risk-assessed figures are put through to give an idea of a
realistic scenario taking account of circumstances such as delays. This enables sensitivity
to be measured. The table at Document 52(26) page 3 item [8] shows the NPV benefits,
calculated exactly as in the Council’s model, but using the non risk-adjusted figures. A
heritage value of 50% has also been included. The outcome is a different preferred option
to that arrived at by the Council, even when no allowance has been made for any
overestimated cost of group repair.
137. Both the 1992 (Document 56) and 2004 versions of the NRA Guidance Manual include
examples of Renewal Areas considered as a single block. In these circumstances, the effect
of all contributors to the area are considered. In the case of the Redearth Triangle it would
include all land in the area including the shops and other businesses as well as the dwellings
and the play area. Apart from the dwellings and three businesses, the others do not impinge
on the NRA as undertaken by the Council. The smallest group as identified by the Council
has only 8 dwellings in it.
138. The cost estimates appear to be slanted one way. Contractors in Lancashire and
Nottingham quoted a £1,400 per house guideline based on single phase demolition, not
£750. Group repair based on re-skinning is not a realistic option for solid stone
construction. The costings for group repair to give the houses a minimum 30 years’ life
have not been put before the inquiry, other than confirmation that they are based on the cost
of similar schemes understood to be in Blackburn and involving brick-built terraced
properties where the outer envelopes were replaced. The lack of need for re-enveloping is
confirmed by the surveyor’s report on the houses in Star Street (Document 44 Section 4).
Furthermore, the redevelopment of the Order lands for industrial purposes would require a
new infrastructure of roads, as would a modern housing area. This would be apparent if the
area were taken as a whole. The NRA makes reference to infrastructure costs.
Page 24
139. The social questionnaires undertaken by Adamson were not done with any professional
guidelines for undertaking professional surveys of opinion. Yet these surveys carry a level
of significance that makes their integrity of great importance to the NRA. An Executive
Member briefing paper dated 16 September 2004 (Document 7) lists 83 addresses and gives
details of the responses to telephone enquiries. No less than 50 respondents replied that
they objected strongly to the demolition of their property and the surrounding area, dispute
the (2004) survey and enquire as to what is meant by ‘serious disrepair’.
140. The costs of group repair is perhaps the most important single assumption. A table based
on the work of Mr Clancy and others for the five assessment areas (Document 55(26) page
4) shows that if it is concluded that the removal of the outer skin and underpinning are not
necessary, the repair costs calculated by the Council represents an overestimate of over
£4,000,000. This has an effect on the ranking of the four ‘options’, as a further table
demonstrates (Document 55(26) page 4).
The Marchaven Companies and David Adamson Associates
141. The choice of contractors to survey houses in the Order area raises questions as to the
Council’s competence in selecting them. It is worrying that the Council invited Marchaven
Consultancy Ltd to tender for the job some two years after Marchaven Services Ltd had
gone into receivership. This consultancy business is neither robust nor substantial. Its
company accounts show a turnover of just over £250,000 up to 30 September 2004. It is
not clear what the precise accountancy qualifications are of Mr Jarvis Whitehead, Director
of that company and former Director of Marchaven Services Ltd. Mr Keith Hunter, also a
former Director of Marchaven Services Ltd, does not have a good track record. This calls
into question the validity of the predecessor company’s 1999 survey, the validity of the
2003 tendering process, the professionalism of the Council in dealing with such businesses,
the validity of the definitions used within the work and the validity of the subsequent work,
particularly in regard to the references to ‘shaky’ foundations.
142. David Adamson Associates has 7 UK offices and offices overseas. Projects listed on the
company website include quantity surveying undertakings that include large and impressive
projects. Services offered include condition, structural and dilapidation surveys. Company
accounts for the period to 28 February 2005 (Document 55(6)) present a different picture.
There appear to be no holding or associate companies. Fixed assets show a dramatic fall to
£47,955. Debtors have also fallen, though cash at the bank has risen. The fall in debts
suggests a fall in trade. The bank overdraft of £434,649 is covered by personal guarantees
of £375,000, a bond and a floating charge, so that the Bank is unexposed to any risk. It is
submitted that this situation arises where a bank has little confidence in a company, and
therefore requires full coverage of the risk.
143. Adamson is not a big international company. The number of employees is represented as
four, including two Directors. The surveyors featured in the papers sent by the Council to
Mr Clancy with its letter of 18 October 2004 (Document 29) are freelance. None of them6
6
Of those about which information has been found by Mr Huggill, he informed the inquiry that Mr Carl Bloor
worked with Wrexham Council up to 3 years ago. No evidence was found of his involvement in grants, asylum
seeker’s accommodation, houses in multiple occupation, Decent Homes or aspects of fitness. Mr Jason Edwards is
a building surveyor, dealing with compliance with the Building Regulations. Mr Bryn Evans is a health and safety
environmental health officer (EHO), not involved in inspections under the Housing Act 1985. He confirms having
received some training from Adamson, based upon comparison of his survey results with a ‘completed form. He
was not trained into the conduct of the household survey. The experience details of Mr John Gwatkins are the same
as for Ms Helen Perry. Mr Mike Bloor and Mr Iain Montgomery have no qualifications as an EHO or surveyor.
Mr Elgin Sharpe whose name appears on many of the survey forms is a self-employed architect whose survey work
Page 25
took part in the Darwen survey. The Council sent out tender forms to 4 companies
including Adamson, who were the only company to respond. The non-returnees were firms
who did not generally undertake this kind of work. One never had, one had twice done so
but would not do it again, and the third, Marchaven Consultancy Ltd, was only involved
with financial management. It is not surprising that only one tender form was returned, due
either to lack of intent or lack of research to obtain properly interested companies.
144. David Adamson Associates was therefore chosen to undertake work in a far from robust set
of circumstances. The surveyors engaged were working on ‘piece rate’ terms, trained to
produce results in accordance with a format provided by the Company. This could be seen
as a fault finding exercise, not a true survey. Many of the personnel listed as exemplars do
not have the expected competence that their CVs wish to show. There are questions as to
the accuracy of their CVs.
145. The surveys by Adamson took place during the winter months, when light, cold, dampness
and wet are at their worst. There is no record on the survey forms as to the weather when
the exterior surveys were undertaken, to comply with an industry standard. Detailed
examination of 25 available forms demonstrates extensive alterations and inconsistencies
(Document 35). It is not known whether Adamson has MRS7 membership. It is unlikely
that any individual surveyor is a member; membership is mostly corporate or individual
professional research consultants. It is not considered that the ‘researchers’ have complied
with the MRS Code of Conduct. The findings of the survey should therefore be given no
validity.
Fitness assessment and Council expertise
146. Local Authority Environmental Health Departments lack the historic expertise to deal with
all the burdens laid upon them by Government. It is unreasonable for an officer such as
Mrs MacAlister to transfer from dealing with standards in the Environmental Protection Act
1990 to those in the Housing Act 1985. The inadequacies of the whole process and value of
opinions of Council officers are a reflection of insufficient appropriate training, experience
and time, not matters which are the fault of individual officers but of their employers and
the Government. Whilst Mrs MacAlister’s efforts are to be commended, they do not make
right the misrepresentation of the requirements of the Housing Act 1985.
147. Of the 3 properties in the Franklin Street No. 2 (Darwen) Clearance Area, that at the west
end has been converted into flats. These houses are of different construction to others in the
Redearth Triangle. There is evidence that the first house had a commercial function. This
may explain why the block has brick rear elevations and why there are peculiarities as
regards lintols. It is not clear to what extent there has been settlement, or to what extent
there was an inconsistent build line in the original construction. There are apart from the
end property, no signs of structural movement in the other two properties. The Council has
described the properties as defective, in a poor state of disrepair, generally in poor
condition, with some external woodwork in the windows rotting. The question arises as to
whether this amounts to serious disrepair.
has mainly been of the exteriors of buildings in Edinburgh, where the ‘Scottish tolerable standard’ is used instead of
the English housing fitness standard.
7
Inspector’s note: An organisation whose stated mission is ‘supporting professionalism, excellence and
effectiveness in the conduct and use of market, opinion and social research, including intelligence, analysis, insight
and interpretation.’
Page 26
148. Similar comments apply in the main to the Council’s assessment of properties in the
Redearth Street Clearance Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Again it is stated that there is evidence of
structural movement throughout the terraces. The questions are firstly, whether each
dwelling can withstand the likely combined load, imposed load and wind load, when used
for the purpose intended and secondly whether it can withstand normal ground movement,
is free from on-going movement and the probability of movement, which impose a threat to
its occupants. These buildings have demonstrated a long-term ability to perform these
functions, and the Council must produce convincing evidence to show the contrary.
Subjective opinions are insufficient. Similar comments apply generally to the other
Clearance Areas.
149. A Clearance Area is not justified on the basis of the perceived lack of privacy, garden space
or off-street parking. All the objections listed by the Council as regards disrepair and damp
should be rejected, as also some of the inadequate food preparation facilities. No evidence
of value has been brought to the inquiry about poor ground conditions. The Buro Happold
report quoted by the Council (Document 55(14)) suggests that the land is satisfactory. 15
Star Street was looked at in some detail. It is clear from Mrs MacAlister’s expertise relating
to structural analysis and the understanding and identification of structural failure, that
Environmental Health Departments do not have the historical expertise to deal with this
aspect of fitness assessment.
150. Further doubts exist in relation to the identification by the Council of unfitness due to
dampness and disrepair. Firstly, dampness is a ground for unfitness if it is ‘prejudicial to
health’. The survey forms contain no health assessment. Secondly all forms refer to the
incidence of disrepair; but to fail under section 604, the disrepair must be adjudged to be
‘serious disrepair’. As to how that may be measured, the DAP Isle of Wight survey
(Document 55(30) page 4, internal paragraph 3.3) defines ‘disrepair’ as affecting those
dwellings requiring comprehensive repairs costing over £10,000. If such a yardstick were
applied to the Order area, it would be difficult to identify more than one or two houses
requiring such treatment.
‘Added lands’
151. The Council maintains that the ‘added lands’ are required for any appropriate
redevelopment of the Order area. References 165, 166 and 168 could remain and
development still take place. It is noted that references 165 and 166 are proposed for
deletion from the Order, as is most of reference 164. These plots were not sought at the
same time as clearances were announced in the summer of 2004.
Service of statutory notices and other legal issues
152. The sheets entitled ‘Summary and Particulars of Unfitness’ (Document 34) gave the
addressees of 2, 4 and 6 Franklin Street, Darwen as 2, 4 and 6 Franklin Street, Blackburn.
The legal process relating to the declaration of the Clearance Areas and making of the Order
has accordingly broken down. It is also questioned whether the action to demolish some
properties in the area already owned or acquired was legal in advance of confirmation of the
Order, and whether the Darwen Academy Trust could legally have applied for planning
permission prior to its incorporation in January 2006.
Heritage issues
Page 27
153. The houses in the Order area are not, as described by the Council, ‘turn-of-the century’, and
were more than just mill workers’ homes. Reference to the 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901
Census returns confirms this. Housing in the area originates from the 1840s. The area was
shaped in circumstances in which there was a ‘power struggle’, between the influence of the
mill owners, that of the Methodist Church, and that of the Church of England. This
accounts for the stature of some of the buildings or former buildings in the area (India Mill,
the Primitive Methodist Chapel, St Peter’s Church). There remain about 230 graves within
Order Plot 164 (most of which is requested to be deleted from the Order), together with
remains of the old chapel.
154. The Order houses are stone built, of good quality and simple design. They were built with
the support although perhaps for the ultimate benefit of the Darwen elite who controlled the
town until incorporation in 1878, Eccles Shorrocks being a prime mover. Redearth was not
only in the mainstream of social development and a monument to Victorian opportunism,
but also a vibrant and sustainable community which despite war and flood has survived, and
even now despite the Council’s relentless desire to flatten everything in site, remains robust.
The roofs of the houses were slope according to the geography, without steps. The
combination of lime mortar and stone is a perfect match. The area naturally links in with
the conservation area as extended.
155. Terraced housing has consistent pressure on the foundations all around the house; loads are
equally shared between all elevations, giving a consistent pressure on the foundations.
Lime plaster has superior thermal insulation to most modern plaster. Roofing slates are
more sustainable than modern tiles. UPVC guttering is extremely toxic and has a high level
of expansion and low impact strength; the strength of the associated brackets is often
insufficient. In comparison stone troughing with a lead lining has stood the test of time.
156. Here is one of the most important examples of how those on the lower rungs of society were
honoured and appreciated by the philanthropic people of the town, and given a value and
respect that the leadership of the present is not prepared to recognise. It is considered that
English Heritage were ‘hoodwinked’ into not making formal representations about the
historical significance of the buildings within the Redearth Triangle.
Darwen Academy
157. No accusation is being made on behalf of the Objector that the Council has made the Order
from any improper motive. However, the circumstances in which the Academy is being
promoted raises many questions, including the case for establishing an Academy at the
existing site of Moorland High School, declining school rolls, competition from other
schools, the wishes of the Governors of Moorland High, the true motives for promoting an
Academy on a new site, the role and commercial motivation of Capita plc, the role and
suitability of the existing Directors of the Blackburn with Darwen Education Trust in these
circumstances and the appropriateness of a new school complex at Redearth in relation to
the character of that area (Document 55(26)).
Objector’s conclusion
158. It is an act of fundamental significance to compulsorily deprive someone of their home. In
order to justify such action, the Council needs to have an outstanding case. The case the
Council has presented is flawed, and there are sufficient grounds to reject the Order.
Page 28

159. No. 15 Star Street is a mid-terrace house with a single storey modern offshoot. All other
buildings in the terrace have been purchased by the Council and are vacant. The property
was found in the inspection of January/February 2004 to be in serious disrepair. On the
front elevation the chimney stack and flashings were recorded as requiring replacement,
with the roof structure and covering, gutter and external wall finish requiring repair. The
survey form notes minor roof sag, a slight pushing out of the gutter attributed to possible
roof spread, the chimney on tilt and the stone wall finish in need of repair. On the rear
elevation the roof structure is recorded as requiring repair and its covering replacement.
Other replacement items are the external wall finish and fences, walls or gates. The rear
gutter required repair. The form notes minor (roof) sag, but no visible structural cracks. No
defects are recorded on the rear addition.
160. Internally the only repair items recorded are the finish of the ceiling and one wall in three
rooms and an uneven floor in a fourth. Minor mould/condensation was noted in the kitchen,
bathroom, living room and one other room and minor penetrating damp in that same other
room.
161. A re-inspection of the property was arranged for 10 January 2006, but access was not
obtained. An external survey was carried out from the street which confirmed evidence of
the serious disrepair on the external elevations.
162. So far as the content of legal notices is concerned, the sheets entitled ‘Summary and
Particulars of Unfitness’ (Document 34) are not statutory notices, although the mistake in
the addresses of 2, 4 and 6 Franklin Street is acknowledged. The statutory notices served
on owners and occupiers of these properties under section 289(2B)(a) of the Housing Act
1985 ‘Notice of Intention to Include a Building in a Clearance Area’ (Document 28) did
contain the correct addresses. On other legal questions, the demolition of a building
amounts to ‘permitted development’ under the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development ) Order 1995 (Part 31). As for the legality of the Drawn Academy
Trust, incorporation is not necessary to enable a body to exist or apply for planning
permission.
163. The fact that Marchaven Services Limited was declared bankrupt two years after the 1999
survey is no reflection on the competency of the company’s survey. The Council could not
reasonably have predicted the bankruptcy which can arise for many reasons, and there is no
evidence at the inquiry about those reasons. The findings of the 1999 survey were
consistent with the work subsequently undertaken by Adamson in 2003. The 1972, 1999
and 2003 surveys show a trend of continuing deterioration of the condition of the Order
properties.
164. Mr Huggill suggested for the first time at the end of the inquiry that the NRA was carried
out in 2004. That serious allegation was never put to Mr Osman, despite extensive cross-
examination. It is wholly contrary to the clear evidence of Mr Osman and an unjustified
and unwarranted allegation with no substance8.
165. Mr Huggill’s assertion that his own model without risk analysis recommended group repair,
conflicts with the methodology developed by DTZ Pieda for the then ODPM.
8
Inspector’s note: It is recorded in my inquiry notebook that in response to a question in cross-examination by Mr
Huggill, Mr Osman confirmed that the NRA had been undertaken between November 2003 and March 2004.
Page 29
Description
166. The front roof of 15 Star Street has been laid with concrete tiles. The stone chimney stack
appears stable; some repair of the flashing is required. The wall pointing has been renewed
in places. The rear roof is laid with slates. There is a slight sag in the gutter line. Some
repair to the wall covering is necessary. Part of the rear yard stone wall has been bricked
off.
167. Internally the stairs appear sound. The balustrade rocks slightly, but appears secure. There
are slight dark patches in the bathroom, but no obvious signs of significant mould growth or
condensation in that room, the kitchen or living room. The chimney breast in the latter
room is panelled. Upstairs, the ceiling in the front bedroom appears to display slight signs
of damp in one corner. There is also some staining of the wall paper. The ceiling is uneven
in the middle bedroom, and some attention is required to the far wall where penetrating
damp was observed. There is as recorded in the 2004 survey, no natural light in this room.
In the remaining upper room there is a squeaky floor board near the back window. Any
signs of mould or condensation were not obvious at the time of inspection.
Finding
168. Having regard to the reason alleged by the Council, under section 604 (as amended)
unfit.
Opinion
169. There are a number of external disrepair items both at the front and rear of the property, and
some minor items inside the house, particularly at first floor level. However, the defects are
not such as to be either individually or due to their combined effect so severe and/or
extensive that they present a risk to health or safety, or cause serious inconvenience to the
occupant of the house. Reference 84 is not therefore appropriately retained in the Hannah
Street/Star Street (Darwen) Clearance Area 2.
[WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS]
Reference 154 – 5 Lower Cross Street

Mrs Renee McCumskay (owner occupier)
170. The community was initially led to believe that their homes were to be repaired where
necessary. Later on, residents were told that their homes were unfit. Mrs McCumskay
requested the survey form that had resulted in the representation of her house as unfit.
When she received it, she discovered that the finding had been changed from fit to unfit9.
After that, some residents decided to have their own surveys done by a Professor Clancy,
and his report tells a different story (Document 82). Mrs McCumskay’s house is
structurally sound, and fit to live in. It only needs a few cosmetic repairs. She has not been
given the option to take that action.
9
Inspector’s note: This is not borne out by the copy of the external survey form put in to the inquiry (Document
35), on which no alteration appears to have been made to the finding of ‘unfit’ in terms of repair. However, a
change has been made in terms of the structural stability category from ‘unfit’ to ‘fit’. The internal/social survey
form is consistent with these conclusions.
Page 30
171. Since Mrs McCumskay first occupied her house she has undertaken various improvements,
including a damp proof course when she first moved in and later double glazing, a new
bathroom, new interior doors and a new back yard area. If all the Council properties in the
area are unfit, it is because of neglect of these properties, not those of the home owners.
The residents are being penalized for the lack of care and attention.
172. The Order land is proposed for the development of an Academy, close to the Town Centre.
Everyone Mrs McCumskay has come into contact with (market traders, residents and
others) have expressed the view that the proposal to site the Academy on the Order land is a
bad idea because of road safety and traffic congestion issues. There are existing buildings
which could be used for the Academy. To dispose of these heritage houses to make way for
the Academy is nonsense. It would not require much money to restore the houses to what
they originally were – good quality homes. The Council has not been honest about this
matter, and the residents who have already moved out are now in debt and are not happy.
173. Mrs McCumskay is now in her late fifties, and has three jobs in the local area. She cannot
afford bus fares and she chose her jobs because she lives near the town centre and can walk
everywhere. If she had to move out, the change in lifestyle and possibly employment would
be difficult for her to cope with. Her house is her life, being and existence. To say the
house in unfit is an insult. The houses in the area are part of the town’s heritage and will
outlive most of the residents, given due care. The residents like to live in real homes, not
‘boxes’. She has looked at alternative accommodation that she might be able to afford, but
so far has only seen properties that lack basic amenities like kitchens and bathrooms.
174. Mrs McCumskay cannot afford to go into debt in order to buy another house. She wishes to
sustain her Objection, unless the Council can offer her a continuation of her lifestyle as it is
now, costing no more and no less than at present, and offering everything she now has,
including a house of the quality, solidity and comfort of her present house. The Order
houses cannot ever be replaced; schools can.
175. The Objection property is an end terrace house. It remains the only occupied dwelling in
the terrace of 5 of which it is a part. The house was found in January-March 2004 survey
visits to be unfit due to serious disrepair. It is recorded that on the front elevation, the
replacement of chimney flashings and repair to the chimney stack and roof covering is
necessary, there being a note of moderate chimney failure. On the rear elevation it is
recorded that UPVC gutters, down pipes, soil pipes and the external wall finish require
replacement, and the roof structure and covering repair. Moderate roof sag is noted. On the
side elevation it is recorded that the gable wall finish requires replacement. Internally the
floor finish in the stairs/landing is recorded as requiring repair, as are single walls in the
front and back bedrooms.
176. A re-inspection of the property was arranged for 10 January 2006, but internal access was
not obtained. An external survey confirmed evidence of the serious disrepair on the
external elevations, but without access the remaining items of unfitness could not be
confirmed. Photographs 7-12 (pages 4-6) illustrate inappropriately located down pipes on
the front and rear elevations, extreme areas of damp on the gable wall and the ‘twist’ in its
profile, unevenness in the roof slates and defective rendering on the rear elevation.
Page 31
Description
177. On the front elevation a few roof slates have slipped or lifted. The chimney stack and
flashing is in need of attention (it is noted that the rear of the stack has been painted with a
bituminous material). On the rear elevation, the down pipe is slightly bowed, and there are
signs of leakage about a third of the way up. Part of the roughcast wall rendering has
spalled. Similar rendering on the gable wall has also spalled in places. The dark
colouration of part of the gable wall suggests water penetration. Inadequacies in the gable
verge have contributed to water staining at the top of the wall.
178. Internally the only defect noted was some creaking of stair boards. It appears that some
attention has been given to the walls of the bedrooms by dry lining and/or plastering. As
also evident from the 2004 survey, no obvious signs of damp were observed in the house.
Finding
requirements: repair; and by reason of that failure is not reasonably suitable for occupation.
Opinion
180. This end terraced house has a greater potential for defects in its external fabric than mid-
terrace houses, particularly given the size and locational exposure of the gable wall. Whilst
no present signs of damp are identified within the house, the condition of the chimney stack
and flashing and the rendering on the gable and rear elevation walls, the inadequacy of the
gable verge and the inefficient location and variable condition of down pipes all increase
the risk of water penetration likely to lead to internal dampness affecting occupants of the
house, if these defects are not remedied. Therefore notwithstanding the contrary view
expressed in Mr Clancy’s report on this property (Document 82) I consider that the severity
and extent of these particular defects present a risk to the health and safety of occupants,
and therefore constitute serious disrepair. The property is rightly represented as unfit.
LAND OUTSIDE THE CLEARANCE AREAS
Mr & Mrs Atherton (owner occupiers)
181. The area earmarked as the site of the proposed Darwen Academy has caused immense
controversy with residents. The lack of an offer from the Council at the time the Objection
was made presented Mr & Mrs Atherton with difficulty in making offers for suitable
alternative properties. The area in which they live has become horrendous to live in, with
burglaries, rats and household waste.
182. The Academy is not objected to in principle, but its location was not completely thought out
or discussed with residents. Other residents are unsure as to their future. It is wondered
who will benefit from new housing on the site of Moorland High School which the
Academy is to replace. Mr & Mrs Atherton appeal for fairness in property exchange having
been forced to move against their wishes, and hope for consideration and human rights.
Page 32

183. The Objectors’ house adjoins the Redearth Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas Nos. 1 and 2.
The house is one of six fit houses within the terraces forming the Redearth Street Clearance
Areas, the retention of which would preclude the satisfactory redevelopment of the
Clearance Areas. In particular, such retention would leave a pattern of cleared areas that
could not properly be developed for employment generating uses, particularly if those uses
had to be developed around isolate pockets of housing. Compensation for the loss of the
Objector’s property will be paid to them according to the statutory tests. Alternative
accommodation is being sought and made available for all residents.
Description
184. A mid-terraced house on the south east side of Redearth Street, adjacent to another ‘added
lands’ property, 15 Redearth Street (reference 33). The Objection property has a modern 2
storey extension at the rear.
Mr Vittorio Battistel, owner
185. It is considered that the Order proposals can be implemented without the Objection property
being required, as it is peripheral to the land required. The property is in pristine condition
and has been the Objector’s family home for almost 40 years.
186. It is requested that this property be excluded from the Order.
Description
187. A substantial detached house and garden.
OTHER SUBMISSIONS OPPOSING THE COUNCIL
Ms Natasha Lea Jones

188. Ms Jones used to live at 8A Sudell Road, a house in the Order area and has been one of the
co-ordinators of the Darwen Community Group under the banner Home Environments at
Redearth Triangle. When residents came to learn about the Council’s clearance proposals
in 2004 they met together and resolved to do something about the proposals.
189. The decision to make the Order was taken on 16 September 2004. Many residents attended
the Council Executive Board meeting on that date, but were not allowed to speak. There
was confusion in the community, and insecurity. Tenants and Housing Associations were
not so unhappy. Houses started to be vacated; there were fires in vacant property, and it
was an intimidating situation. People were losing their will to fight the proposals. Some
others having moved, are now in debt of up to £70,000.
190. The residents asked the Council to inform them why their houses were considered unfit.
They also asked for information as to what the cost of renovating their properties might be.
They were sent copies of the survey forms for their houses. They could not understand why
the Council was unhappy about the condition of their homes, and asked for the
Page 33
qualifications of the surveyors who had carried out the surveys. A letter was also sent to
Network Rail seeking clarification as to whether land in the area was sinking, as the railway
line ran adjacent to the Order area. There had been a damage to a culvert in 1984 which led
to flooding and some damage, but the culvert had been repaired.
191. The Community Group made a contribution to the House of Commons Housing, Planning,
Local Government and the Regions Committee (Document 88). Letters were written to the
Royal Family and others (Document 87(20)). Residents attended a series of meetings
including one on 25 August 2004, when a short period was allowed for questions at the end
of the meeting (Document 87(24). Some questions were asked, but there were no
satisfactory answers. There was a press campaign, including an article in the Sunday Times.
192. Ms Jones has received a small sum in compensation, but has had difficulty finding suitable
alternative accommodation. Tenants have no rights. The ODPM policy is to sustain
communities, not to shatter them. Other land is available for the Academy. Mrs
McCumskay is a single woman with limited financial recourses. House prices in the area
have risen sharply since 1999. Residents should have been given the opportunity to fix the
problem. Their questions of the Council have met with unsatisfactory replies.
Mr Daniel R Hilary
193. Mr Hilary lives in a regeneration area in Blackburn. He obtained a breakdown of costings
from the Council for refurbishment or demolition in his area. Surveys were done in his
neighbourhood by Adamson, the contents of which were reviewed and amended by Council
officers, often without notice being given of the changes made. He wondered why it had
been necessary to amend the survey forms. He was surprised that Adamson had been re-
engaged by the Council.
194. Mr Hilary asked the Council what the qualifications were of the officers who had amended
the survey forms. He brought these matters up with Mr Graham Burgess from the Council,
and was informed that the Executive Board had agreed the changes at one of its meetings.
It was understood that Mr Burgess could not now remember having given Mr Hilary that
advice.
195. Mr Hilary consulted the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) about what action
was open to him in such circumstances, and in particular whether the RICS would consider
it professional for a survey form to be altered. He subsequently received a reply (Document
95).
Mr Brian Clancy10
196. Mr Clancy was asked in August 2004 by an existing client living in Lower Cross Street to
examine her house and consider whether there was any justification for the view that the
house was structurally defective. After examining the house he concluded that there was no
such justification. He was subsequently engaged to carry out inspections of 15 other
properties in the Redearth Triangle, and after that a further 6 properties. He also, at the
request of his clients, attended a public meeting on 28 August 2004.
197. It was concluded by Mr Clancy that with the exception of one property, necessary repairs to
the houses he had inspected would incur costs in a range from a nominal amount to between
10
Mr Clancy was referred to at the inquiry by some participants as Professor Brian Clancy, in recognition of his
holding the position of Visiting Professor of Structural Engineering at Liverpool John Moores University since
1996 (see Document 80 for CV).
Page 34
£2,000 and £3,000. None required such substantial repair as to make them uneconomical to
repair and to justify their demolition. Most of the houses he inspected had been criticised
because of their roofs. Mr Clancy understood that the surveys undertaken by Adamson took
15 to 16 minutes per house. This was quite a rapid rate of surveying. In his view just to
conduct a proper visual inspection took about 2 hours per property.
198. Some observations made by the surveyors for Adamson were wrong, such as ‘slopes down
at the front’ in relation to 8 Redearth Street. At the same property there is reference to the
front elevation having ‘dropped along (its) entire length’. The house was built that way. At
Mr Majid’s house (10 Sudell Road), the reference to subsidence of the extension was only
an initial settlement crack. No justification was given for comments such as ‘kitchen not
suitable’ (7 Lower Cross Street), ‘kitchen inadequate’ (13 Lower Cross Street), ‘external
disrepair’ (9-11 Redearth Road and 9 Lower Cross Street). The surveys are very poor and
highly questionable. It gave rise to the question as to whether the surveyors were
inexperienced, or whether they had another agenda.
199. Mr Clancy attended the public meeting on 25 August 2004 and wrote to Mr Osman of the
Council the following month (Document 73). He asked Mr Osman whether the Council had
evidence to justify the demolition of the houses as economically beyond salvage, and
whether information was available about the repairs necessary to rectify the defects
identified in the Adamson survey. The Council’s reply (Document 29) was inadequate. He
was shown a large property (18a Sudell Road) which had a large crack in the gable end. On
this basis, the whole terrace was condemned. The cost of repairing the end property,
averaged out between every house in the block, was likely to amount to about £6,000 per
property. Alternatively, No 18a could be demolished and the exposed wall made good,
resulting in an average cost per house in the block of some £4,000.
200. Mr Clancy is concerned about the social effects of the action the Council has already taken
in the area, namely the purchase of properties in advance of the Order, rehousing their
occupants and boarding up the houses, which has led to environmental degradation in the
area and depressed the value of the remaining houses. There was however no justifiable
reason for clearing the area.
201. Under cross-examination, Mr Clancy conceded that the inspections he undertook were not
made with the requirements of section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 in mind. He confirmed
that he had never undertaken an NRA. The drop in the gutter at 8 Redearth Street depicted
on the Council’s photograph 14 (page 7) was not along the entire length of the property; it
was a small piece of structural movement. The merging of different sizes of roof slate in
photograph 22 (page 11) was regarded as discontinuity from disrupted slates where the
roofs of two properties merge. Whilst some defects were acknowledged (photographs 23 &
24 page 12, photograph 27 page 14), the property was not unfit, even when the cumulative
impact of all defects was considered, taking into account the likely cost of their repair11.
11
Inspector’s note: Mr Clancy submitted a letter to the inquiry after his inquiry appearance (Document 81). This
deals in the main with the changes that have occurred in the Redearth Triangle since his original visits to the area in
2004; the good presentation of the area and individual houses in that year; the apparent change in approach by the
Council from the question of general repair defects to the inadequacies of kitchen and bathroom facilities; the costs
of repair and the degree to which the original community in the area has already been destroyed by the Council’s
actions.
Page 35
Save Britain’s Heritage (SAVE) (Mr Adam Wilkinson, Secretary)

Human rights and communities
202. SAVE first had their attention drawn to the Redearth Triangle by concerned local residents
in the summer of 2004. Despite their clearly stated interest in the area and communication
with the Council, Elevate East Lancashire and the GONW, at no stage were they informed
of the timing of the inquiry, hence the rather hasty production of their evidence.
203. Article 6(1) of the ECHR binds the Inspector to do more than merely give ‘leeway’ to
objectors. There is gross inequality of arms in the regeneration process, with the local
authority having at its disposal a level of expertise and funding not available to local
residents. There is no doubt that residents were unfamiliar with the planning process and
many aspects of the Housing Acts. A responsible local authority ought to offer community
groups financial support to participate in tribunals where people’s homes are proposed for
acquisition. Legal aid for inquiries is available only in exceptional circumstances. SAVE is
not aware of any financial support having been offered by the Council in this case.
204. The key question in this case is whether the loss of good historic buildings and their
attendant communities is balanced by wider gains for the community that would result from
the demolition. This was summarised by the Inspector at Nelson. The Redearth Triangle
community has nothing to gain from the demolition of their homes. It is impossible to
discuss historic areas such as the Redearth triangle separately from the local community.
Heritage
205. The Order buildings are part of a mill workers’ estate dating from the 1870s. They adjoin a
conservation area. The estate remains mostly intact, apart from the loss of one of its
churches. Such estates aimed to provide affordable housing for workers and their families,
a function that has continued ever since. There is little difference in the quality of the
buildings in the conservation area and those outside but in the clearance areas. Most are
two-up, two-down houses with small back yards. At the time of SAVE’s 2004 visit they
were lived in by a well established community, within walking distance of local shops,
schools and churches – an example of a model sustainable community. Heritage forms an
important part of Darwen’s identity. This is not necessarily the statutorily protected
heritage, but rather the wider heritage of this historic mill town with its mighty India Mill.
Abuse of Housing Acts
206. The wrong Act has been used in this case on the wrong houses in the wrong manner for the
wrong purposes. The Council has considered the fitness test against a higher threshold than
whether the homes are fit for ‘occupation’, at one point citing the Decent Homes Standard.
The pro forma letter sent to residents revealed no fact and degree assessment as to why the
particular house was not suitable for occupation. So neither the Inspector nor the Objectors
know how or why the Council considers a house is unfit. It is not enough for the Council to
say that a particular criterion applies, because the statutory test requires the consequences
for occupation of that particular criterion to be thought through12.
207. Section 289(3)(a)(i) of the Housing Act 1985 requires the Council to exclude from the
clearance map any residential property that is not unfit. The removal from the clearance
map of all buildings that at the time of the survey were fit for occupation (not habitation)
12
This argument is further developed in Mr Wilkinson’s letter to the Inspector dated 17 March 2006 (Document
63).
Page 36
would reveal only a handful of unfit buildings within the Order area, not the 94% claimed.
Section 289(2) states that demolition has to be the most satisfactory course of action.
SAVE has seen no evidence to demonstrate this – there has been no real discussion of the
alternatives to demolition such as improvement or adaptation of the existing houses, and
SAVE is not aware that this was ever presented as an option to residents.
208. It is clear from the outset that there has been a proposal to erect a City Academy on the
Order lands, and that this information with withheld from residents. The key driver for the
scheme is not therefore the condition of the houses, but rather a desire to create a
development site suitable for the Academy. The whole consultation process was a farce.
209. So far as the fitness survey is concerned, SAVE strongly questions the ability of the alleged
qualified surveyors employed by the Council to judge all the grounds of unfitness on the
basis of a brief visual external inspection. We also question the qualifications of these
surveyors and of those interpreting the surveys13. The survey forms appear to have been
marked down in places to ensure that the properties did not meet the tests for unfitness. The
inspector is himself unable to make good deficiencies in the Council’s case otherwise than
unfairly and in breach of the Article 6(1) fairness requirements including impartiality14.
210. The quality of the surveys and the qualifications of the surveyors was brought up by SAVE
and by Mr Brian Clancy in letters to the Council (Documents 70 and 73). There appears a
skills deficit within the Council for which residents should not ‘carry the can’. Residents’
evidence indicates that the surveys were undertaken by unqualified surveyors. They were
not qualified to make a properly considered and adequate assessment of the condition of the
houses that could stand scrutiny at an inquiry; yet the Order is based on such ‘surveys’. On
the other hand, Mr Clancy surveyed a number of houses within the Order area that had been
deemed to be unfit. He is a highly qualified and highly reputable surveyor with extensive
experience of dealing with historic buildings and structures. The surveys he undertook
resulted in his finding the houses surveyed to be at the worst in fair and at best in good
condition.
The Council’s approach
211. The attitude of the Leader of the Council as outlined in her letter to SAVE of 15 September
2004 (Document 70) is dismissive and unworthy of the leader of a democratic body.
Consultation with the community by the Council has fallen short of any lawful and
meaningful standard, and has been ineffective. The Council appears not to have produced
any figures for the percentage of households who voted for demolition. It is not clear
whether the demolition of the entire area was ever mentioned to residents as an option.
212. Meetings between the Council and community representatives minuted by Ms Natasha Lea
Jones (Documents 75 and 76) confirm that the community were largely kept in the dark
throughout the process of development of the scheme. The community were told that
detailed figures for the repair of the houses as distinct from demolition would be produced
at a public inquiry. Residents were also told that evidence about subsidence would be
produced at the inquiry.
213. Furthermore, the community had to ask what the criteria for a section 289 notice were. One
of the reasons given for the clearance of the area was subsidence through mining activities,
13
See footnote 5.
14
See footnote 5.
Page 37
yet the area has an active railway line running through it. The subsidence appears to stop at
the edge of the conservation area. Historic maps reveal no mining activities in the area.
Abandonment and market failure
214. Apart from the question as to whether the Government can lawfully or factually interfere
with a free market outside such command economies as the former USSR, the key
motivation for the HMR Initiative is to try to solve economic and social issues surrounding
market failure. In September 2004 there was little evidence of that, with two bedroom
houses in the area fetching between £60,000 and £75,000 (Documents 77 and 78). Whilst a
little below the average for the area, it is far from stories of homes changing hands for £10
in a public house. Any market failure that has occurred since has been engineered by the
Council and Pathfinder body through the scheme.
215. When SAVE first visited the area in 2004 there were no more than 10 empty houses, owned
by the Council. Abandonment has only really occurred since the clearance proposals came
to light. It could be argued that the abandonment which has occurred is not by the residents,
but by the local authority. The proper management of historic and other areas is the key to
their market value. The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England’s research Useless
Old Homes found that key problems were not the buildings but the social conditions
surrounding the homes, such as crime levels and litter.
216. People leave an area such as this only when they feel they have done everything possible
when confronted with a faceless and unaccountable system intent on the blighting and
consequent destruction of their homes and heritage. The Council has already demolished
some homes in the area that it already owns. Actions such as this unnecessarily create
blight and threaten those still in the area. There are tax incentives for building new
dwellings on previously developed land.
Sustainability
217. The demolition of about 16015 well-built, structurally sound and attractive houses built at a
PPG3-compliant density in an urban setting that support public services and contribute
towards a sense of place is a blatant waste of scarce resources and embodied energy. Whilst
a key benefit to private market developers, it is also a waste of scarce public funding which
could better be spent on helping owners where needed to repair their historic homes and
knit the townscape back together. The cost of demolition of houses of this sort should even
after the salvage of materials be at least £50,000. Thus the Council appears to be spending
in the region of £10,000 to destroy a community to create a development site. The cost of
repair, at a generous £25,000 per building would be at the most £4,000,000.
Ancient Monuments Society
North West Civic Societies Association
(Mrs Kathleen Fishwick)
Background and history
218. Mrs Fishwick has local connections, having spent part of her childhood in Darwen, and still
having family members living there. Redearth is a typical part of a Lancashire town, a
community of families and people of all ages living together much as they have always
done, and having pride in their homes and streets.
15
A figure of 152 dwellings is quoted in paragraph 11 above.
Page 38
219. Whilst the 1960s saw a period of demolition throughout Lancashire, by the late 1970s
public opinion had turned against the loss of the familiar character of towns, and grants
became available for house owners to upgrade their property. Particular features of this
work were the rebuilding of gables and re-roofing, with internal improvements particularly
in the installation of bathrooms, toilets and damp proof courses. Mrs Fishwick does not
recall any mention at the time that the improvement works were only intended to last for 30
years. Any major structural work done to a house at that time would, particularly if it had
been grant-aided, have been subject to strict conditions from the Council’s Building Control
service, and therefore unlikely to have been inadequately done.
220. It became fashionable in the 1980s and 1990s to buy new houses further out of town. Some
houses left behind in the older towns because neglected and undesirable during this period,
manly due to extraneous environmental issues. Academic studies into the problem brought
the subject to the attention of the Government, with the evolution of Regional Planning
Guidance identifying a surplus of housing in the north for which at the time there did not
seem to be any solution but mass demolition. At the same time there was a
conservationalist backlash against building on green field sites and the realisation that there
was cheap property to be had in the centre of many of the older towns, creating a reversal of
trends and investments over the last five years.
Government initiatives
221. The aim of the Government’s Pathfinder programme is to tackle the problem of empty and
low demand houses. Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council identified several areas with
housing problems including the Redearth area, which was put forward for ‘Elevate’
funding. Elevate has stated that its funding depended on there being a certain percentage of
demolition, a condition with which the local authority had to comply. The fact that funding
from Elevate and other Pathfinder bodies has been sought by Councils for areas that in
many cases were not abandoned, and for which values and patterns of investment have
improved in the last three years, has led many people to question the then ODPM directly
about the need for demolition. This has met with a response that demolition has not been a
condition required by the ODPM. This point has never been satisfactorily answered.
222. Although Elevate has promoted itself with an aim to improve areas holistically, the
manifestation of this aim has so far left much to be desired. From evidence to the House of
Commons Select Committee16 it appears that in many cases old local authority schemes
have been ‘taken off the shelf’ to provide ‘quick wins’ to attract funding. The implication is
that Elevate has not looked at its actions in the light intended. There has been no evidence
that in East Lancashire the Pathfinder programme has been able to secure better housing for
displaced residents. By moving communities out of traditional town centre locations, there
have been adverse effects on local services and travel difficulties. The proposed new
Academy does not seem to fit with the stated aims of the Pathfinder programme to rehouse
people in sustainable locations or in their communities.
223. No one area can be composed of one type of person or property. Individual circumstances
of tenancies and ownerships and the varying condition of the properties need separate
analysis and attention. The necessary work would significantly delay the funding that
Elevate is under pressure to claim, a problem the organisation is beginning to face. The
proposals for the Redearth area should be seen against this background. The Council states
that the area has been a problem for years, and seeks to promote clearance as the only
16
Presented by Mr Max Steinberg, Director of Elevate, in February 2005.
Page 39
solution. However this seems to be based upon the circumstances of 2003, without taking
into account property price rises in the last two years. Nor does the analysis take into
consideration or make available present costs of demolition of the properties as against
refurbishment, or the balance of sustainability in the use of energy and waste of materials.
Fitness assessment
224. The real problem lies in defining unfitness. This was a major issue in the Whitefield,
Nelson inquiry, the reopened inquiry being for the purpose of addressing the matter of
unfitness (Document 55(29)). Despite having been deprived of heating and regular
maintenance, having been left empty and boarded up for two years, the houses were still
deemed by the Inspector in many cases to be fit and capable of being brought back into use
without undue expense.
225. Mrs Fishwick visited the Redearth in August and September 2004 and has been inside some
of the houses there, including 26 Sudell Road. At that time more houses were lived in and
cared for in the Redearth area than at Whitefield at the time the houses there were declared
unfit. There were also signs in Redearth of recent investment in properties, two having
been newly refurbished, a sign of public confidence in the area which had not happened in
Whitefield. There were visible problems in the Redearth area, but many of these were
matters of detail that could be put right with ordinary maintenance and mending.
226. The consequences were those of neglect rather than structural deterioration. No evidence
has been offered by the Council of the monitoring of cracks or faulty joints to determine
whether they are the result of recent movement or historic settlement which has long
stabilised. Mrs Fishwick has seen many times the effect of blight on property, and the lack
of investment by people whose houses have been affected. It is to be expected that in the
current climate of rising house values and appreciation of the sustainability of town centre
living, the Redearth area left to itself would have naturally regenerated without serious
intervention. Mrs Fishwick has known Mr Clancy in a professional capacity for over 25
years, and she would be happy to accept his findings in relation to the properties he was
invited by residents to inspect.
Heritage
227. The Order area bears much resemblance to the Conservation Area to the north, and must be
related to it in period and design. Many buildings in the Conservation Area are composed
of large ashlar blocks, and these are also found on Lower Cross Street and parts of Sudell
Road, indicating that these may be earlier buildings than those with smaller stone courses in
the remainder of the area. The whole setting and context of tightly knit terraces on this
hillside is a typical piece of Lancashire townscape, especially when seen from Bolton Road
around India Mill. There is evidence that the area was built on the land (and probably by
contacts) of the Shorrock family, who were responsible for India Mill itself. The Parish
Church can be glimpsed from many of the streets in the Order area.
228. Sudell Road is an impressive route into and out of the town, framed by the row of houses on
its southern side. They comprise a bold piece of Victorian design, and differing styles give
the row a rich variety, linking into the bigger houses above the railway line. These quality
houses originally built for white-collar workers deliberately and proudly face the town and
its administrative centre. This row would make an ideal outer boundary to the Conservation
Area, as without it the streets to the north side of Sudell Road inside the Conservation Area
lack definition, and end in a ragged edge. It would be difficult to construct anything today
that could visually take the place of the houses on Sudell Road, and impossible to read the
Page 40
development of the town without them. No details of the design or materials of the
proposed Academy have yet been made available, despite the proximity of the site to the
Conservation Area boundary.
Ms Denise Perry
229. Ms Perry lives in a block of houses, Nos 55-81 Harwood Street in a part of Darwen where a
Clearance Area was declared by the Council in July 2005. She had gained the impression
that the Council had not been honest about the Clearance Area. The first firm information
she received about her own property was a letter in July 2005 from the Council informing
her that her house was not unfit but would be included in a proposed compulsory purchase
order (CPO) as ‘added lands’. Of the houses in her terrace, 5 had been identified as unfit
and 9 fit.
230. Ms Perry helped to raise a petition of objection to the CPO and the matter was considered
by the Council’s Executive Board on 15 September 2005. The Board agreed to review the
position so far as the block referred to was concerned. After that she and her neighbours
heard nothing from the Council. She attended the Manchester University Legal Advice
Centre, who managed to establish that the Council had removed the block from the CPO
and were considering giving the block a ‘facelift’ in the future. She therefore has sympathy
with the circumstances of residents in the Redearth Triangle particularly regarding not
having been kept informed. It was not a transparent process.
231. The Council has claimed that the Order area has no historic value. Ms Perry’s research
confirms in her own mind that the area around India Mill is of great historical significance
to the town, providing housing for both blue and white collar workers. The local stone
houses have a distinctive character. Charlie Chaplin and an uncle of Beatrix Potter have
residential connections with the area. Ghandi also visited the area (see photograph at
Document 66 page 37). She understands that in 1992 English Heritage strongly advised the
Council to include the Order area in the Conservation Area.
OTHER SUBMISSIONS
Councillor Roy Davies

232. Councillor Davies is a representative of Sudell Ward which lies immediately to the north of
the Order area. He is a governor of the Moorland High School. He had been informed by
the Head Teacher when the Governors met in October 2003 that a new Academy was being
proposed for Darwen. In 2004 he discovered that the Redearth Triangle had been identified
as a suitable location for the Academy. The repair circumstances at some of the Order
houses were not dissimilar to those affecting his own dwelling. He attended the first
exhibition relating to the Academy proposals, and had come to the impression that they had
met with a positive response. He takes a neutral position about the merits of the Order, but
acknowledges that the Council could have handled the process differently.
Mr Ray West
233. Mr West has considered and re-run the NRA methodology, and its susceptibility to changes
in input data (Document 96), in his submission a type of sensitivity analysis. Mr West
confirms that in some ways, he takes a neutral position in regard to the merits of the Order.
However if Mr Clancy’s figures for repair costs are accepted, refurbishment would emerge
as the preferred course of action rather than clearance and redevelopment. Costings
Page 41
include the cost of temporary rehousing and underpinning. He followed the methodology
of the model, but has applied different weightings and applied an average of two from the
household survey. He considers that the costs of demolition have been understated.
Objections from non-qualifying persons

234. Mr Gerald Barker who is a Darwen resident expresses in a letter addressed to the local
Member of Parliament (MP), sympathy for the people who live in the Order area. He
considers it would be cheaper to refurbish the houses rather than demolish them, instead of
spending a large sum of money on a new Academy. Mr M Yates in a letter also addressed
to the MP expresses similar views. L Grayston who lives in Oswaldtwistle refers to the
solidity of the Order houses which have stood the test of time, and to their part in Darwen’s
heritage. A new Academy in Darwen is considered unnecessary. The Order would force
pensioners into debt due to their having to move house.
235. Ms Patricia Cooper from Darwen considers that demolition of the Order houses would
reduce the vista and architectural heritage of Darwen and break up a large community some
of whom have been there for generations. She recalls that it was reported in the local press
that the Council’s survey had been altered to downgrade some houses from ‘in need of
refurbishment’ to ‘unfit to live in’. The site is regarded by local residents and local
Councillors as an unsuitable one for a new Academy. The properties in most need of repair
are those owned by private landlords. The Deputy Prime Minister has called for there not to
be wholesale demolition of property in Darwen, as it does not accord with the Pathfinder
approach. Other reports suggest that more stable communities help to contain criminal
activity. Retaining the properties would preserve the area’s historic heritage, including the
preservation of 150 year old graves. This would maintain the community, promote the
retention of the local economy and help to prevent social exclusion.
236. Mr Alexander D Gordon from Darwen feels that some people have been pushed into
selling their houses as the Council has stated that the houses are unfit to live in. Some
houses have been kept in very good order. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that
houses should only be demolished as a last resort. The proposed Academy would cause
traffic gridlock near the town centre.
OTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Homes Under Threat (HUT)
237. HUT’s statement is at Document 92. The main points are:
• Effects of the mass acquisition of properties prior to a decision on the Order.
• Manner in which communities are consulted about the heritage of their area.
• Suspicion in this case that options were pre-empted.
• Clearance and redevelopment the easy option.
• Drawbacks of a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
• Shortcomings of the ADF process.
• Difficulty of converting sustainable communities policies to action on the ground.
Page 42
• Desirable to manage regeneration through an independent Trust.

• Taking of decisions without adequate community involvement.
• Confusion caused by different levels of decision making.
• Shortage of affordable housing.
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
238. The CBA’s is at Document 93. The main points are:
• Inspected Redearth Triangle area at request of residents in 2004. Saw robust stone terraced
houses reflecting improved quality mid-nineteenth century housing, with positive
community.
• Gave evidence at the Whitefield, Nelson inquiry where opposed demolition, and following
non-confirmation of that Order contributed to discussions feeding into the ADF and
proposals now to refurbish houses.
• Many similarities between Whitefield and Redearth Triangle. Council has failed to
appreciate status of terraces that bear witness to industrial prosperity of Darwen.
• Demolition never a pre-requisite for Pathfinder funding. Refurbishment proposals now
outnumber demolition proposals in Pathfinder areas.
• No Council evidence seen for full costs of demolition. Should include loss of embodied
energy within structures, and economic and social costs of breaking up the community.
No information as to what will replace houses.
• Therefore support retention of sound Victorian terraced housing in Redearth Triangle.
Insufficient case made for demolition – request that Order be not confirmed.
UNOPPOSED LANDS WITHIN THE CLEARANCE AREAS
LANDS WITHIN THE FRANKLIN STREET NO. 2 (DARWEN) CLEARANCE AREA
Description
239. The Clearance Area comprises 3 terraced properties (2, 4 and 6 Franklin Street, references
1, 2 and 3) on a steeply sloping site on the corner of Franklin Street and Lower Cross Street.
Two of the dwellings each contain two bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level, and
two living rooms and a kitchen at ground floor level. The third property has been converted
to self-contained flats and has a bathroom, kitchen diner and bathroom on each of the
ground and first floors. The houses open directly onto the street. There are small yards to
the rear elevations, with access from a back access way (photograph 70).
240. The properties are of traditional construction in stone on the front elevation and brickwork
cavity construction to the gables, rear elevations and annexes. All properties have a blue
slate roof with a mixture of UPVC and metal box gutters to the front and UPVC gutters to
the rear annexes and main structure. The Council’s evidence which has not been
specifically challenged17 is that there is strong evidence of structural movement throughout
the terrace and that the dwellings are generally in a poor state of repair, including defective
17
Inspector’s note: Mr Huggill on behalf of Ms Wood merely queries whether the defects amount to ‘serious
disrepair’ (see paragraph 147 above).
Page 43
stone or brickwork on chimney stacks, house and boundary walls, roofs in generally poor
condition and some external woodwork in the windows rotting.
Finding
unopposed houses in the Franklin Street No. 2 (Darwen) Clearance Area are unfit for
human habitation because they fail to meet the following requirements: repair; dampness;
lighting, heating and ventilation; facilities for the preparation and cooking of food; and by
reason of that failure is not reasonably suitable for occupation.
Opinion
242. The properties were not inspected internally. The finding in relation to dampness, lighting,
heating and ventilation and facilities for the preparation and cooking of food is based upon
the unchallenged evidence of the Council. In relation to repair, the finding is based on my
external inspection and the evidence and photographic record of the Council. The Council
has not formally alleged structural instability. In my view the many visible gaps in the
external pointing of the brickwork of walls and around window lintols which suggest past
or current movement or moisture or frost action, together with defects on roof coverings are
sufficient in themselves to constitute serious disrepair. The properties are therefore
correctly represented as unfit.
LANDS WITHIN THE HANNAH STREET/STAR STREET (DARWEN) CLEARANCE AREAS
1&2
Description
243. The Clearance Area when declared comprised 54 terraced properties on sloping land, and
includes houses on Sudell Road above Hannah Street. Nos 34-44 Hannah Street (references
69-64) have been demolished, together with the adjoining ‘added lands’ 46 Hannah Street
(reference 99). Most dwellings comprise two or three bedrooms with bathroom at first floor
level, and either one or two living rooms and a kitchen at ground floor level. Some
properties have annexes. Most of the houses open directly onto the street, although the
Sudell Road houses have small front gardens, and there are small yards to the rear. Rear
access is available. The houses are of traditional stone construction with some brick-built
annexes, and most have a blue slate roof. Gutters are stone, timber or PVC.
244. The Council’s evidence in relation to the unopposed properties which has not been
challenged on an individual property basis is that there is evidence of structural movement
throughout the terraces and that the dwellings are generally in a poor state of repair,
including defective stone or brickwork on chimney stacks, house and boundary walls, roofs
in generally poor condition, some external woodwork in the windows rotting and some
outbuildings and stores in disrepair and unused.
245. The report commissioned by Mr Huggill (Document 44) in relation to the houses in Star
Street states that in February 2006 the front elevations of the terraces were bulging
outwards by up to 45 mm, with evidence of significant horizontal misalignment of the stone
gutters, rendering to the rear elevations in a poor state of repair, original gable walls leaning
out slightly, mortar joints to front elevations generally in need of repointing, some signs of
weathering on the front stone elevations and considerable deterioration of the roof covering
including cracked or missing slates, lead flashings in poor condition and some deterioration
of chimney stacks. The report also recommends quite extensive works that might be
required to bring all properties up to a state of ‘full restoration’.
Page 44
246. An inspection was made of 9 Hannah Street (reference 49), where the front ground floor
window was blocked up and there was a slipped slate on the roof. The rendering on the
gable wall needed renewal, dark markings towards the left hand side suggesting water
penetration. At the rear both the door and kitchen window were blocked in. Internally
floorboards were loose or missing on the upper landing, the sink and taps were missing
from the kitchen, the bathroom had been vandalised, with no hot and cold water supply to
the bath, tiling needing replacement in two places. In the living room the window was in
disrepair and the electrical supply had been disconnected. The floorboards were missing in
one corner of the front bedroom. Floorboards were also missing in the back bedroom and
there were signs of damp on the back wall.
247. I inspected 18A Sudell Road where scaffolding had been erected around the gable wall
following the incidence of serious cracks in that wall. The severity of those cracks and
further extensive damage some of which is as a result of the scaffolding and associated ties
leave the property in serious disrepair. At 17 Hannah Street I found a broken floorboard at
the top of the stairs, damage to the outside wall of the kitchen and an unsatisfactory floor
surface in that room, and wall discolouration in the front bedroom. The electricity supply
had been disconnected.
Finding
unopposed houses in the Hannah Street/Star Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas 1 & 2 are
unfit for human habitation because they fail to meet the following requirements: repair;
dampness; lighting, heating and ventilation; facilities for the preparation and cooking of
food; water closet, washbasin and bath or shower; and by reason of that failure is not
reasonably suitable for occupation.
Note
249. The finding is based on my inspections of 8A Sudell Road and 9 and 17 Hannah Street, my
external inspection of remainder of the Clearance Areas, the evidence of the Council and
the survey report commissioned by Mr Huggill.
LANDS WITHIN THE SUNNYBANK STREET (DARWEN) CLEARANCE AREA
Description
250. The Clearance Area when declared comprised 52 terraced properties on a sloping site above
and below Lower Cross Street, including houses on Sudell Road, Franklin Street and
Redearth Road. At the time I inspected the area Nos. 10 and 12 Lower Cross Street
(references 121 and 122) and 14-26 Sunnybank Street (references 120-115 (consecutive)),
together with ‘added lands’ Nos. 22 Sunnybank Street (reference 163) and 28 Sunnybank
Street (reference 162) were in the course of being demolished, as were 1-19 (odds) Franklin
Street (references 132-123).
251. Most dwellings comprise (or comprised) two or three bedrooms with a bathroom at first
floor level, and either one or two living rooms and kitchen at ground floor level. The
majority of houses open directly onto the street, and there are small rear yards with rear
access available. They are of traditional construction in stone, with stone and brick
elevations, and some with brick annexes. Most properties have a blue slate roof with a
mixture of stone, timber or PVC gutters. The Council’s evidence is that there is structural
movement throughout the terraces, and that the dwellings are generally in a poor state of
repair; chimney brickwork or stonework, house and yard boundary walls are defective in
Page 45
many instances; some roofs are in poor condition and some external woodwork in the
windows is rotting. Some outbuildings and stores are in disrepair and are disused.
252. An inspection was also made of 21 Redearth Road (reference 16)18, where both ground
floor and upper floor front windows were blocked in, all fittings had been removed from the
bathroom, the living room window was blocked up and a fireplace ripped out, the floor of
the kitchen left as rubble, a door vandalised and window boarded up, and units missing.
The back bedroom felt very damp, with a window partly boarded up. This house is clearly
in serious disrepair.
Finding
unopposed houses in the Hannah Street/Star Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas 1 & 2 are
unfit for human habitation because they fail to meet the following requirements: repair;
food; water closet, washbasin and bath or shower; and by reason of that failure are not
Note
254. The finding is based on my inspection of the area including 21 Redearth Road, and the
Council’s evidence in relation to the unopposed properties.
LANDS WITHIN THE REDEARTH STREET (DARWEN) CLEARANCE AREAS 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
Description
255. The Clearance Areas contain 23 terraced properties located on a relatively flat site off
Redearth Road. The houses comprise either two or three bedrooms and a bathroom at first
floor level, and either one or two living rooms and a kitchen at ground floor level. Some
properties have single or double storey annexes. Most of the houses open directly onto the
street, although some have very small front gardens. There are small yards to the rear
elevations, with a rear access way.
256. The properties are of traditional stone construction, built with brick and stone elevations.
Most have a blue slate roof with stone, timber or PVC gutters. The Council’s evidence is
that there are signs of structural movement throughout the terraces, and that most houses are
in a poor state of repair; chimneys, house and boundary walls are defective, roofs are in
generally poor condition and some external woodwork of windows is rotting. Some
outbuildings and stores are in disrepair or unused.
257. I inspected 13 Redearth Street (reference 18), where I found that the render on the rear
elevation required surface treatment, the yard door was removed and the yard paving had
some cracks and holes in it. Internally the kitchen was very small, the cooker being located
near the door. There was discolouration due to damp or severe condensation in the
bathroom. The dining room window was broken. There was damage to a window reveal in
the front bedroom, and a faulty fire/boiler and loose floorboards in the back bedroom.
18
Inspector’s note: I have noticed that the Summary and Particulars of Unfitness for Order reference 8 refers in
error to 19 Redearth Road, instead of 21.
Page 46
Finding
unopposed houses in the Redearth Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are unfit
for human habitation because they fail to meet the following requirements: repair;
food; water closet, washbasin and bath or shower; and by reason of that failure are not
Note
259. The finding is based upon my inspection of 13 Redearth Street and external inspection of
the remainder of the Clearance Areas, and the Council’s evidence in relation to the
unopposed properties.
UNOPPOSED LANDS OUTSIDE THE CLEARANCE AREAS
(EXCLUDING LANDS PROPOSED BY THE COUNCIL TO BE DELETED)
Description
Lands surrounded by Clearance Areas
260. There are four mid-terrace ‘fit’ houses surrounded by the Clearance Areas – 6 Redearth
Street (reference 28), and 15, 19 and 22 Sunnybank Street (references 158, 159 and 163).
Lands adjoining the Clearance Areas
261. Within the terraces forming the Redearth Street Clearance Areas there are six fit houses (2
Redearth Street (reference 27), 31 Redearth Street (reference 31), 17 and 15 Redearth Street
(references 32 and 33), 5 Redearth Street (reference 34) and 45 Redearth Road (reference
35), and a communal yard (reference 36). The Redearth Street Clearance Areas are also
adjoined by the sites of two cleared houses (references 29 and 30) and land used for
residential parking (reference 98). These sites adjoin the sites of 10 to 20 Franklin Street,
not in the Order but already in Council ownership.
262. There is further open land, also the sites of cleared houses, adjoining the Hannah Street/Star
Street Clearance Areas (references 91, 92, 93, 99 and 100). Adjoining this land are two
small plots adjacent to the railway line (references 99 and 101). Land at the junction of
Hannah Street and Sudell Road is cleared land under the Council’s control, laid out as a
landscaped parking area as part of the former GIA programme (reference 96). Reference 97
is a fit mid-terrace house (23 Star Street). Reference 95 is also a mid-terrace ‘fit’ house (38
Sudell Road).
263. Associated with the Sunnybank Clearance Area, reference 168 is a piece of cleared land
adjoining Sudell Road which was landscaped by the Council as part of the former GIA
programme. References 160, 161 and 167 are other areas of vacant land. The part of
reference 164 that the Council wishes to have retained in the Order is a walled-in part of the
garden of 21 Redearth Road (reference 139), a fact only discovered by the Council shortly
before the inquiry.
Page 47
CONCLUSIONS
[The numbers in square brackets in the text refer to source paragraphs in the main body of the
report]
Pathfinder, Housing Market Renewal and development plan context
264. Save Britain’s Heritage criticised the use of Housing Act powers in the circumstances of
this inquiry, namely the need as the Council and other Housing Market Renewal (HMR)
stakeholder partners see it, to deal with poor housing conditions and to rectify conditions of
low market housing demand [206]. However, the Council alleges that most of the houses
within the Order area are unfit within the terms of section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 (as
amended) [24].
265. The stated purposes of the Order, namely those of ‘undertaking or otherwise securing the
demolition of buildings in clearance areas and securing a cleared area of convenient shape
and dimensions and the satisfactory development or use of the cleared area’ are entirely
appropriate to the making of a compulsory purchase order under section 290 of that Act.
Whilst it might also have been appropriate to consider the use of compulsory purchase
powers under the Town and Country Acts to secure the clearance of the houses, the use of
Housing Act powers is no less appropriate, if a compelling case can be made.
266. The pursuit of the Order is consistent with a key regeneration objective of the Regional
Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North West, namely to concentrate new development in areas
most in need of regeneration which include East Lancashire. The proposed use of the Order
area if the Order is confirmed would accord with important economic or educational themes
of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES), irrespective of whether the Order lands when
cleared were used for employment purposes as envisaged in the Central Darwen
Development Framework (ADF) or redeveloped as an educational site as more recently
proposed by the Council.
267. As to whether the Order is appropriately made to deal with problems of low market
demand, the evidence on this is conflicting. The Council is in no doubt that there has been
low market demand for houses in the Order area, and a high turnover in the occupation of
properties [13]. One Objector attributes low demand to an oversupply of speculative new
house building around the year 2000 [132]. Yet Objectors and other inquiry participants,
whilst acknowledging that there might have been a high turnover [123], maintain that even
if there was a reflection of low demand in depressed property prices a few years ago, those
circumstances have changed largely due to market forces and not to any intervention by the
Pathfinder body Elevate or the Council itself [118, 122-123, 192, 214, 226]. A picture is
also painted of a residential area that in 2004 was stable and a place that residents were
happy to continue to live in [51, 70, 79, 173, Footnote 11, 205, 215, 225].
268. The issue of the fitness status of houses in the Order area and the action necessary to deal
with those conditions is the prime consideration in the assessment of the submitted Order.
However, the wider context of the Government’s objective of building communities (or of
supporting existing sustainable communities) is also an important factor in determining
whether the clearance of unfit housing is the most satisfactory course of action. I am not
convinced that Elevate and the Council in particular have paid sufficient ongoing attention
to market conditions in the area to make a compelling case for intervention on housing
market grounds. Indeed, even if the Order area was at one time an area of low market
demand, there is no compelling evidence that that is still so. Indeed evidence was put in
Page 48
from a variety of inquiry participants so suggest that market conditions were improving, and
were likely to continue to improve if the intervention by the action of compulsory purchase
had not been carried forward [59, 70, 118-122, 132, 214, 221].
269. Nor in my perception has the Council paid sufficient attention to the views of the local
community and consulted with them in an open minded way at an early stage in the process.
The process of community consultation has been perceived by many residents as being
largely characterised by the presentation of proposals which are a fait accompli [124, 189-
191]. It is difficult to reconcile the Council’s evidence as to the extent and nature of public
consultation carried out in May and August 2003 with the residents’ negative perception of
events in the summer and autumn of 2004 and their views expressed at the inquiry [59, 69,
189-191, 212, 230, 237]. One conclusion that could reasonably be drawn from this is that
the 2003 consultation process was not successful in convincing the community of the Order
area of the merits of the clearance option contemplated at that time, and that residents were
accordingly caught rather unawares in the summer of 2004 by the way the proposals were
proceeding.
270. The proposals for Sub-Area 4 within the Central Darwen ADF specifying the clearance of
160 houses and the development of the cleared area for employment purposes were
published in December 2003, before the outcome of the NRA process could have been
known [18, 130, Footnote 8] and before the survey to establish the up-to-date position as
regards the condition of the houses was undertaken by David Adamson & Partners
(‘Adamson’) [21].
271. The social component of survey work undertaken in 1999 even if clearly indicating a
significant degree of local support for clearance options at that time could not, in my view,
adequately inform action to appraise options in the NRA in 2004 [20]. Concern by the
community about the inadequacy of the social questionnaire process adopted in 2004 and
their own evidence of affected residents’ views [59, 69] casts in my own view considerable
doubt as to whether the course of action proposed by the Council has adequately taken into
account the views of the community.
The Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment (NRA) process
272. Circular 05/2003 Housing Renewal issued on 17 June 2003 confirmed that the extant Annex
C3 to Circular 17/96 Neighbourhood Renewal Process would be replaced by new guidance
then under preparation. This guidance was subsequently published by the then ODPM as
Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment – Guidance Manual 2004 in September 2004.
Circular 05/2003 states that the NRA continues to be the recommended method for
considering the most satisfactory course of action in dealing with unfit housing.
273. The Council states that it used the NRA model developed by DTZ Pieda for the former
ODPM [30]. I recognise a logic in Mr Huggill’s assertion that because the NRA was
undertaken before the 2004 Guidance Manual and accompanying software were published,
the Council could have not used the model referred to in that guidance, and must therefore
have used the 1992 predecessor guidance [130]. However the Council said it did not use
the 1992 guidance, but rather the model developed by DTZ Pieda, who trained Council
personnel in its operation.
274. In my view it is more than likely that a developed updated model existed some time before
the 2004 Guidance Manual was published, and would have been used in the training
delivered by the very firm of consultants who had been developing the methodology for the
ODPM. Mr Osman referred to the use of the most up-to-date version of the model that was
Page 49
available. The alleged inconsistency in the Council’s evidence on this particular matter is
not therefore one to which I would accord any weight.
275. Two aspects of the 2004 Guidance are worthy of mention. The first is that the NRA
methodology is not mandatory; if a local authority has an alternative approach to making a
comprehensive appraisal of the area that will fulfil the requirement, it is free to use that
approach. However the Council has in this case chosen to follow the NRA approach. The
second aspect is that the NRA approach can be used for determining the most appropriate
course of action for one street or block of houses; the area assessed does not have to be a
large neighbourhood. So the Council’s approach of applying the NRA model to blocks of
property within the Order does not conflict with the Guidance, despite criticism by Mr
Huggill that the Council should have been assessing the whole area as one entity.
276. It is also argued by Mr Huggill that the options are best generated initially without the input
of risk-assessed figures into the net present value (NPV) data, the risk-assessed element
then being applied subsequently as part of a sensitivity analysis [136]. The Council
maintained that its operation of the model using figures that had been risk-assessed was in
accordance with the Guidance [30]. The guidance states ‘once the data has been entered
into the cashflow it is recommended that consideration is then given to the risks that some
inputs will turn out differently to that assumed.’ The printout of the run of the model
executed by the Council appears to confirm that this is what the Council has done [31].
Whilst issue could be taken about the magnitude or otherwise of individual items forming
part of the database, I find no convincing evidence that the Council has misinterpreted or
misused the model or clearly acted against the advice in the Guidance Manual.
277. The Council undertook an economic assessment to compare group repair with clearance,
and concluded that the costs for clearance were significantly below those for group repair
[32]. The assumptions made by the Council in arriving at the figure for group repair have
been strongly criticised by some inquiry participants [128, 140, 197, 199]. The Council’s
costings are based on the conclusion that there would be a need as part of the group repair
process to excavate some foundations and pull down and rebuild exterior walls, with the
resultant disruption to habitation [32]. The critics of this position argue that no such action
is necessary, that the Council’s costings for group repair are therefore grossly inflated, and
that this factor alone has itself distorted the outcome of the NRA process. Another
participant argues that the costs of demolition have themselves been underestimated [233].
278. Whilst it is not disputed that the Council has considerable experience of promoting group
repair schemes in housing areas [32], it is not clear to what extent that experience extends to
stone terraces with the particular characteristics and circumstances of those in the Redearth
Triangle. On the face of it, the action suggested appears draconian and is not supported by
relevant technical or appropriate professional evidence from the Council. Whilst the need
for damp proof treatment to be considered is accepted, it is serious disrepair rather than
extensive damp which features in the Council representation of most of the houses in the
Order area as unfit.
279. As things stand therefore, and taking into account the evidence of Mr Huggill and Mr
Clancy, I do not find the evidence supporting the Council’s view as to the extent of
rebuilding required to be undertaken for group repair to be convincing. It follows that the
estimates of average costs for the repair of houses in the Order area are likely to have been
exaggerated. Such a matter has a significant bearing on the outcome of the option appraisal
exercise and therefore the decision as to what is the most satisfactory way of dealing with
conditions in the Order area. In these circumstances, I find the conclusion of the NRA
Page 50
undertaken by the Council that clearance and redevelopment is the most satisfactory course
of action for dealing with the condition of houses in the Order area to be seriously
compromised.
Fitness assessment issues
280. The extant Annex A to Circular 17/96 defines the Fitness Standard and provides guidance
on its interpretation. It is made clear that the guidance is advisory – whilst local housing
authorities are asked to have regard to it when applying the standard, they must form their
opinion ‘in the light of all the relevant circumstances’. A background note emphasises that
the primary concern should lie in safeguarding the health and safety of the occupants of a
dwellinghouse, that the extent to which the building presents a risk to health and safety
depends on the nature, severity, extent or location of the defect, that the standard should
generally be related to the physical characteristics of the dwelling and not to its current
occupants, and that the dwelling should be reasonably suitable for occupation for all
household sizes and types of potential occupant who might reasonably be expected to
occupy it.
281. Widespread concern or criticism was expressed at the inquiry about the qualifications of the
surveyors who undertook the 2004 survey, the content of the survey forms and the manner
in which they were completed, the time taken for each survey and the judgements made by
the surveyors, particularly as to what constitutes ‘serious disrepair’ [24-25, 95, 104, 109,
141-145, 163, 170, 190, 198, 207, 209-210, 226]. As to qualifications, Circular 17/96 made
no reference to the qualification requirements of surveyors undertaking such surveys, and
neither does the extant Annex to the Circular.
282. The Local House Condition Surveys: Guidance Manual19 does not recommend that
surveyors engaged on a house conditions survey should have any specific minimum
professional or technical qualifications. The Manual emphasises that it is important where
consultants are employed, the authority should make sure that the consultants have
sufficient experience to deal with unforeseen problems. It is also recommended that up to
six organisations be invited to tender – the Council invited four, some of whom appear not
to have been suitable [143]. In terms of surveyor briefing the advice in the Manual includes
that time should be allowed for this activity, with training and testing in real houses as part
of the briefing process, that necessary professional training should be available for non-
specialists. It is not clear how closely the Council followed this advice. Although some
effort was made by Objectors to argue that the qualifications and experience of surveyors
engaged by Adamson were not fit for the task in hand [95, 104, 144, 198, 209], there is
however no clear evidence that the surveyors were not adequately equipped by briefing or
other training to undertake the survey, or that their work was not adequately scrutinised.
283. Criticism was also made of Mrs MacAlister’s qualifications and experience to undertake
full confirmatory inspections under section 604 [146]. In the context of issues of structural
instability she accepted that she was not a qualified structural engineer. Although
Adamson’s surveyors made some comments on survey forms which could be construed as
opinions about structural instability and despite the Council’s general references in evidence
to ground conditions in the area [37], the Council did not represent a single house in the
Order area as being unfit for that reason. Consequently I find this criticism to be of little
relevance to the general issue of competence.
19
DOE, 1993 (ISBN 0-11-752830-7)
Page 51
284. As to Mrs MacAlister’s competence to consider other grounds of unfitness such as serious
disrepair, in my professional experience it is not uncommon for an Environmental Health
Officer to have work experience and training during their career in more than one branch of
Environmental Services. There is no evidence that Mrs McAlister has not had appropriate
training to undertake house inspections under section 604. Whilst findings of structural
instability are usually backed up by structural engineer’s reports, this was not necessary in
circumstances in which no findings of unfitness due to structural instability were made.
Whether or not there is any dispute as to the correctness of individual judgements she may
have made on other grounds of unfitness and particularly serious disrepair, is another
matter.
285. Notwithstanding the issue of qualifications, I accept that 15 minutes, and certainly the four
minutes referred to by one Objector [95] if the sole visit for inspection purposes, would be
insufficient a time in which to make an adequate assessment of a typical house with a view
to reaching a judgement on all nine grounds of fitness in section 604 of the Housing Act
1985. On this basis therefore and because the Council did not adduce any evidence that a
longer time was spent in most cases by surveyors on inspection activity, there is more than a
suspicion that the survey process did not come up to the full expectations necessary to
ensure that a thorough, objective and convincing assessment could be made. On the other
hand, the two hours mentioned by Mr Clancy as the time he had taken on at least some of
his inspections [197] may not be a cost effective or practical objective for a local authority
commissioning a survey for a large number of houses. The 1993 Guidance Manual
suggests that using a shortish survey form, an individual surveyor should complete perhaps
10 inspections a day.
286. No survey forms were put in as evidence by the Council in the first instance, but those
relating to the Objection properties were subsequently submitted by the Council at my
request, and some were put in by Ms Natasha Lea Jones. I do not find the forms in any
particular way to be deficient in their format or different from the normal run of forms that
might be used in these circumstances. The criticism made of them that reference is only
made to disrepair and not serious disrepair [150] is in my view, of no moment, because the
word ‘repair’ is but a short title for that whole ground of unfitness (as employed in the
heading to Section 3 of Annex A to Circular 17/96), and not an indication that the surveyors
were assessing the houses against the wrong yardstick. It does not to my mind provide
convincing evidence that the surveyors were unaware that serious disrepair had to be shown
to justify a finding of unfitness on grounds of repair.
287. It is clear however that the surveyors did not make full use of the survey form. Much more
use could have been made of the boxes on the forms titled ‘Surveyor Comments’,
‘Justification’ and ‘Comments’, not only to describe the defects found by the surveyor in
more detail, but also to express the surveyor’s view about the impact of the defects on the
occupants of the house, a fundamental part of the Section 604 assessment. The form also
has provision for the recording of photographs taken as part of the Inspection.
288. It may be that issues of cost and time precluded the taking of photographs as part of the
general survey. But greater descriptive material on the part of the surveyor making for a
better understanding of the issues contributing to the finding of unfitness would have made
for a better survey. It would have made the Council’s task easier in considering the
outcome of the survey and deciding on the most satisfactory course of action, and also
easier for owners and occupiers of the houses affected to understand the survey results.
There is no doubt in my mind that had the surveyors completed the forms in the manner I
Page 52
suggest, they would have taken considerably longer than the 15 minutes it is alleged they
did take on average to complete a survey.
289. A significant part of the disputed evidence as to the findings of unfitness is whether items
of disrepair identified constitute serious disrepair for the purposes of Section 604(1)(b) of
the 1985 Act. I have in relation to a number of the Order properties that are the subject of
Objection, reached a different conclusion to that of the Council as to the fitness status of the
property. I have also carried out a visual inspection of other properties in the Order area,
and have inspected some of those properties. Despite the general criticism of the 2004
survey and the Council’s inspections conducted in January 2006, I have not found sufficient
evidence to convince me that the Council’s findings of unfitness in relation to those
unobjected properties is incorrect. This is not to discount the shortcomings I have referred
to in paragraphs 286 and 287 above in the way the survey forms have been completed.
290. I accept that the cost criteria used by Mr Clancy to influence his judgement regarding
unfitness should not be relied upon, as they do not reflect the fitness assessment
requirements of section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 nor the guidance in Annex A of
Circular 17/96. Nor should the DAP cost ‘threshold’ of £10,000 be a crucial factor in the
section 604 assessment [150].
‘Added lands’
291. I am satisfied that if the Order were to be confirmed, the acquisition of that land surrounded
by clearance areas (including properties that I consider are not unfit would be reasonably
necessary for the purpose of securing cleared areas of convenient shape and dimensions
[261-262].
292. I am also satisfied that if the Order were to be confirmed, the acquisition of that land within
the Order adjoining the clearance areas (apart from land which the Council request be
deleted from the Order) [261-262], and including properties that I consider are not unfit is
reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development or use of the cleared area.
Heritage issues
293. The heritage topic was the subject of much dispute at the inquiry. Two facts are clear - the
Order area contains no listed buildings, and is not in a conservation area [46]. The Order
lands adjoin the Town Centre Conservation Area (sometimes referred to as the St Peter’s
Conservation Area) which was recently extended. English Heritage made no
recommendation that the extension should include the Order area [46]. PPG15 Planning
and the Historic Environment makes it clear that the duty to consider the designation or
extension of conservation areas lies principally with local planning authorities. It is
therefore no part of the remit of this report to consider whether conservation area status
should be accorded, or should have been accorded, to the Order area.
294. The Council’s statement that the Order area has no recognised heritage value [46] masks
the fact that considerable evidence was put in to the inquiry from national and local sources
ascribing townscape and historical value to the Order area [153-156, 204-205, 227-228,
231, 235, 238]. In the absence of any formal recognition of these qualities through
development plan policy, listing, ‘local listing’ or conservation area designation, I find no
clear basis for concluding that there is any recognised policy provision that supports the
heritage case as capable on its own of influencing the outcome of the subject Order.
However, the nature of evidence put in was not fundamentally challenged by the Council,
only the conclusions reached as a result of it. I therefore accept that the heritage case is a
Page 53
material consideration, but not so significant as to be an overriding factor in the decision as

to whether or not the Order should be confirmed.
295. Comparison was made by some participants between the subject Order and the housing
Order which was not confirmed Whitefield in Nelson [224-225]. I fully accept that there
are material differences between the two cases, including those that led to the mounting of
opposition to the Nelson Order by English Heritage but their deciding not to become
involved with the Redearth Triangle. However, it is pertinent in this context to examine
carefully why English Heritage declined to become involved, as explained in its letter to Ms
Natasha Lea Jones [47].
296. I do not disagree with the Council’s point that the letter confirms that English Heritage
considered the circumstances at Nelson to be exceptional [47]. There are references in that
letter to English Heritage not having the resources to advise local authorities or
communities in respect of Pathfinder developments in each ward (third paragraph), and to
the limitations of their remit (last paragraph). These circumstances appear to have been
material to English Heritage’s decision not to become involved with the Redearth Triangle.
My interpretation of that letter is that it does not express any clear view on the part of
English Heritage about the merits of the heritage case put forward in relation to the Order
area.
297. The evidence of Save Britain’s Heritage forms part of the heritage case argued against the
Order [205], notwithstanding the Council’s point about the curtailment of time for cross-
examination [48]. The aerial photograph of the Order area within SAVE’s publication
Pathfinder [9] illustrates some affinity between the appearance and layout of houses in the
Order area and those in the Conservation Area to the north. The Order houses fronting
Sudell Road and particularly those north of Hannah Street make a contribution to the
streetscape of Sudell Road, on the boundary of the extended Conservation Area. The
evidence of Mr Huggill places considerable emphasis on the historical legacy of the area
[153-154]. However these factors cannot in my view be decisive in the determination of
this Order, given the circumstances outlined in paragraph 293 above.
The Council’s proposals for the Order lands
298. The Local Plan notation of the Order lands as falling within a Primary Residential Area [14]
does not preclude the redevelopment of that area in principle, for housing or an alternative
use. Redevelopment would be consistent with the Structure Plan emphasis on development
within main towns such as Darwen, and with the Regional Spatial Strategy theme of
concentrating new development in areas of regeneration need [15]. The Order area lies
within a Regeneration Priority Area. It is possible that regeneration objectives could also be
served by the refurbishment of the existing housing stock in the area.
299. The 2003 ADF proposals for the Central Darwen Sub-area, namely employment
development with an emphasis on high quality offices [18] does not in itself put such
development in conflict with the Local Plan provision for the Redearth Triangle area, as that
provision mainly reflects the existing use of the land. Such a development would need to be
subject to an appropriate range of assessments, including those relating to its traffic impact
and proximity to the Town Centre Conservation Area. I find no basis on which to justify
the non-confirmation of the subject Order on account of the nature of that proposed
redevelopment of the Order lands, the merits of which would fall to be considered against
the development plan and other material considerations.
Page 54
300. The Academy proposal had not been formulated in relation to the Order area when the ADF
was published. However outline planning permission has been granted for this proposal.
This confirms that the Council as local planning authority considers it to be acceptable in
principle in planning terms. The merits of the Academy proposal lie outside the remit of
this inquiry into the compulsory purchase of the Order lands. The criticisms made by
Objectors and other inquiry participants and in written representations about the Academy
in planning and educational terms [68, 80-81, 105, 157, 172, 181-182, 234, 235, 236]
should not affect the outcome of the decision on this Order.
Issue of improper motive
301. Strong suspicion has been expressed that the Council was unduly and improperly influenced
when arriving at its decision to make the subject Order by the fact that the Order lands were
being identified as potentially suitable as a main site for the implementation of a new
Darwen Academy [51, 95, 157, 172, 208]. No formal allegations were however made by
Objectors or other inquiry participants as to this matter [157]. The Council has denied any
such motive [39-42]. Whilst recognising that the building of a new Academy on the Order
lands is a contentious local issue which has been the subject of debate and representations
during the same period as the Order was being prepared for submission to the Secretary of
State, I find no evidence to demonstrate that the Council actually made the Order
specifically to make land available for this project, rather than to deal with the condition of
the housing stock.
Human rights
302. The Council accepts that the Order if implemented would affect the human rights of the
remaining owners and occupiers of the Order properties under Article 8 and Article 1 of the
First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [43]. The Council
considers that such interference is justified in the circumstances of the Order and that
Council’s action is proportionate [44]. I consider that whether that proportionality exists
depends fundamentally on two matters, firstly the findings of unfitness in most of the Order
properties and secondly the conclusion that clearance is the most satisfactory course of
action for dealing with those conditions.
303. I have concluded that certain houses subject to Objection in the Order area are, contrary to
the Council’s allegation, not unfit [56, 101, 115, 168] but should if the Order is confirmed,
be retained as ‘added lands’ . I have not disagreed with the Council’s findings of unfitness
in relation to the properties that are not the subject of individual objections [241, 248, 253,
258], although I recognise the general criticism of the Council’s findings from some
Objectors [87, 95, 104, 109, 147-148, 150, 197-198, 207, 224-226] and have noted that the
survey forms could have been completed in a more informative manner [287-288]. On the
Council’s evidence on fitness therefore, I do not consider that it has acted
disproportionately.
304. I have concluded that the NRA process has been significantly compromised by inadequate
justification for a group repair process that would require the demolition and rebuilding of
whole walls and the ‘decanting’ of residents [279]. Such works would considerably inflate
the costs of repair, to the extent of seriously compromising the validity of the Council’s
overall conclusion which favours demolition rather than repair. If weight is to be given to
such a matter, it follows that the confirmation of the Order in such circumstances would be
disproportionate and a violation of the Objectors’ Article 8 and Article 1 (First Protocol)
rights.
Page 55
305. The Council maintains that the inquiry process has been held generally to be consistent with
Article 6 rights [45]. No inquiry participant made any formal submission to me that they
had had insufficient opportunity reasonably to put their case to the inquiry and to challenge
the case mounted by the Council. The issue of the appropriateness of the venue for the
inquiry was dealt with at its opening, without any further recourse to that matter in later
stages [1-3]. Whilst I accept the point put by Save England’s Heritage that there can
sometimes potentially be an inequality of arms at inquiries into compulsory purchase orders
[203], the impression that I gained at this inquiry was that Objectors were satisfied that I
was giving them more than mere ‘leeway’.
Other matters
306. It was alleged by Mr Huggill that the statutory process associated with the Order had been
compromised by the insertion of inaccurate addresses in relation to three order properties in
the ‘Summary and particulars of Unfitness’ [152]. However the Council pointed out that
such documents were not statutory notices, and that the notices served under section
289(2B)(a) of the Housing Act 1985 bore the correct addresses [162]. I accept that whilst
the error mentioned was unfortunate, it did not appear to have prejudiced the statutory
process. The other questions, of demolition requiring planning permission and the status of
the Darwen Academy Trust are matters of law, but were responded to by the Council [162].
Overall conclusions
307. The Council indicated at the close of the inquiry that 130 of the 152 dwellings in the Order
area had already been acquired by agreement, and 40 of those dwellings demolished in the
interests of public safety. There is no doubt that the area has changed considerably from
that favourably described by several participants who visited the area in 2004 [70, 79, 173,
181, 189, Footnote 11, 200, 205, 225]. It is clear that the statutory process before and after
the making of the Order has itself significantly contributed towards the area’s deterioration.
308. Yet there is sufficient of the fabric of the area in my view left for it to be rescued from this
critical condition. The question of further action would be the responsibility of the Council
and its HMR partners and it would be a difficult task, given the change that has already
occurred. However it would be harsh on the residents who have fought to keep their homes
if the decision on the Order was crucially influenced by the compulsory purchase procedure
which has contributed to the deterioration of the area.
309. I therefore conclude that there is strong justification for the order not to be confirmed,
owing to the doubt about the area’s current ‘low demand’ credentials, the critical flaw in the
outcome of the NRA process relating to the cost of repair and the weakness as I see it in the
Council’s case for intervention on housing market renewal grounds.
310. If the Order is nevertheless confirmed, it should be modified firstly by the transfer of Order
references 5, 19, 44 and 84 from Part 1 to Part 2 of the Order Schedule, and by the deletion
of Order references 164 (part), 165 and 166 as shown on Map B, as requested by the
Council.
Page 56
RECOMMENDATION
311. I recommend that the Borough of Blackburn with Darwen Franklin Street No.
2/Hannah Street/Star Street/Sunnybank Street/Redearth Street (Darwen) Compulsory
Purchase Order 2005 be not confirmed.
Richard Ogier
RICHARD OGIER
Page 57
APPEARANCES
FOR THE BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BOROUGH COUNCIL

(ACQUIRING AUTHORITY):
Miss Ruth Stockley Of Counsel, instructed by the Director of Legal

and Democratic Services, Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Council
She called:
Mr Sayyed M Osman BSc(Hons), MCIH Deputy Director for Regeneration, Housing and
Neighbourhoods, Blackburn with Darwen
Borough Council
Mrs Sally MacAlister DipEH DipIH Neighbourhood Services Manager, Blackburn
with Darwen Borough Council
Mr John Ryden BA(Hons) MRTPI Strategy & Project Development Manager,
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council.
FOR THE STATUTORY OBJECTORS:
Mr Nino A Sciamberella Owner occupier of 26 Sudell Road, also

representing Mrs Anna Sciamberella.
Mr F Pietro Sciamberella Owner occupier of 34 Sudell Road, also
representing Mrs Anna R Sciamberella.
Mrs Christine Oldfield Occupier of 16 Redearth Street.
Mrs Margaret Halligan Occupier of 15 Hannah Street.
Mr Thomas K Brian Owner occupier of 4 Sunnybank Street.
Mr Michael Neal Owner occupier of 11 Redearth Street.
Mr Allen Walker LLB Representing his son, Mr Adrian A Walker,
owner occupier of 8 Redearth Street.
Mr Simon Huggill MA MInstM PGCE Representing Miss Jenette Wood, owner occupier
of 15 Star Street.
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Ms Natasha Lea Jones Of 1 Victoria Bank, Robin Bank Road, Darwen
(formerly resident at 8A Sudell Road), also
supporting the Objection of Mrs R McCumskay.
Mr Daniel R Hilary Of 75 Highfield Road, Blackburn.
Mr Brian Clancy BSc(Eng) FIStructE FICE Partner in the Brian Clancy Higby Partnership,
FConsE FCIOB MRICS MCIArb MAE Chartered Structure and Civil Engineers of 168
Park Road, Timperley, Altrincham.
Mr Adam Wilkinson Secretary, Save Britain’s Heritage.
Page 58
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED)
Mrs Kathleen Fishwick MBE ATD DipCon Member of the National Council of the Ancient
Monuments Society, Vice Chairman of the North
West Civic Societies Association, and observer
throughout the inquiry for Save Britain’s
Heritage.
Councillor Roy Davies Councillor for Sudell Ward, Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Council
Ms Denise Perry Of 77 Harwood Street, Darwen.
Mr Ray West Of 71 Richmond Terrace, Darwen.
DOCUMENTS
Document 1 List of persons present at the inquiry, on each day.

Document 2 Schedule of Objections.
Documents appended to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council’s Statement of Case:
Document 3 Briefing paper to Executive Member for Housing and Neighbourhood
Services, 16 October 2003 on proposed Franklin Street No. 2 (Darwen)
Clearance Area.
Document 4 Minutes of Executive Board, 16 October 2003.
Services, 24 June 2004 on proposed Redearth Street (Darwen) Clearance
Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Document 6 Minutes of Executive Board, 15 July, 2004.
Services, 16 September 2004 on proposed Hannah Street/Star Street
(Darwen) Clearance Areas 1 and 2.
Services, 16 September 2004 on proposed Sunnybank Street (Darwen)
Clearance Area.
Document 9 Minutes of Executive Board, 16 September 2004.
Document 10 Minutes of Sustainable Neighbourhoods Overview and Scrutiny Committee,
29 September 2004.
Document 11 Chronology of consultation actions and events in Darwen.
Document 12 Extract from Blackburn Borough House Condition Survey 1984.
Document 13 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Private Housing Stock Condition
Survey 1999, Data Report (Sudellside), Volume 1 (Marchaven Services
Ltd).
Document 14 Extract from Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Area Based House
Condition Surveys – Darwen Area B (David Adamson & Partners Ltd,
March 2004).
Document 15 Extract from NRA Assessment.
Document 16 Extract from Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Scheme of Officer
Delegations.
Document 17 Elevate East Lancashire Housing Strategy Appendix IX - Blackburn with
Darwen Housing Market Renewal Framework.
Page 59
Document 18 Elevate East Lancashire Housing Market Restructuring Pathfinder: Central

Darwen Area Development Framework (Blackburn with Darwen Borough
Council, December 2003).
Document 19 Darwen Town Centre: A Strategy for Improvement and Investment 2004-
2010 (Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, April 2004).
Document 20 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Housing Strategy 2005-2008.
Document 21 A Strategic Approach to Planning for Housing in Blackburn with Darwen:
Interim Policy Statement (Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council,
December 2004).
Document 22 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Local Plan (April 2002).
Document 23 The Replacement Joint Lancashire Structure Plan 2001-2016 ((adopted
March 2005).
Document 24 Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) (March 2003).
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council documents:
Document 25 Court of Appeal Judgement in Dover District Council v Peter William
Sherred and John Barnard Tarling [1997] 29 HLR 864.
Document 26 Appendices 1 to 5 to Mr Osman’s proof of evidence.
Document 27 Formal representation to the Executive Members and Members of the
Executive Committee, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council regarding
the fitness of 2, 4 and 6 Franklin Street.
Document 28 Notices under section 289(2B)(a) of the Housing Act 1985 served on the
lessees of 2, 4 and 6 Franklin Street.
Document 29 Letter dated 18 October 2004 from Mr Osman to Mr Brian Clancy with
attached curriculum vitae of employees of David Adamson Associates.
Document 30 Letter dated 31 January 2005 from Mr Darren Radcliffe, Historic Areas
Advisor, English Heritage to Mrs Natasha L Jones, then resident at 8A
Sudell Road.
Document 31 Bundle of print-out pages of the Council’s application of the
Neighbourhood renewal Assessment model developed by DPZ Pieda.
Document 32 [not used]
Document 33 Leaflet Extending Darwen Town Centre Conservation Area.
Document 34 Summary and particulars of unfitness.
Document 35 External survey questionnaires and internal and social survey questionnaires
for Order properties (Area Based House Condition Survey 2003).
Document 36 Copy of notice of planning permission for 1600 pupil academy on land off
Redearth Road, Darwen, dated 22 December 2005 (ref. 10/05/0499).
Document 37 Bundle of papers relating to tendering process for private house condition
survey, 2003.
Documents put in by Mr Allen Walker:
Document 38 Letters written by Mr Adrian Walker to the Council and the Government
Office for the North West, 10 October 2005 and 11 January 2006.
Document 39 Letter dated 12 April 2006 from Mr Allen Walker to the Chief Executive,
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council requesting information under the
Freedom of Information Act, together with extracts from the Lancashire
Evening Telegraph dated 17 and 18 March 2006.
Document 40 Bundle of letters from Mr Allen Walker to the Blackburn with Darwen
Borough Council and copied to the inquiry, requesting information under
the Freedom of Information Act, with Council letter of acknowledgement.
Page 60
Document 41 Letter dated 27 September 2004 from Mr Clancy to Mr Osman of

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council regarding fitness of properties
within Order Area.
Documents put in by Mr Simon Huggill:
Document 42 Minutes of Executive Board of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council,
11 March 2004.
Document 43 An Academy in Darwen: Expression of Interest – The Rodney Aldridge
Charitable Trust (undated).
Document 44 Report on Terraced Houses, Star Street, Darwen – Bradshaw, Gass and
Hope (February 2006).
Document 45 Letter dated 27 March 2006 from Mrs Christine Oldfield, 16 Redearth
Street, Darwen and reply from Mrs S MacAlister, Neighbourhood Services
Manager, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council.
Document 46 Handwritten notes made by Mr Huggill about the surveyors recorded as
having been used by David Adamson Associates, and about some of their
findings.
Document 47 Decision Form submitted to Executive Board on 15 September 2005
regarding the subject Order.
Document 48 Webpage from educationguardian.co.uk/news/story.
Document 49 Report into Findings of the Consultation on Faith Schools and Cultural
Diversity, with Appendix 1 (no date given).
Document 50 National Union of Teachers paper Academies.
Document 51 Webpages on low demand housing from www.helm.org.
Document 52 Extract from ODPM Housing, Planning and Local Government and the
Regions Committee on Empty Homes and Low-demand Pathfinders, Eighth
Report of Session 2004-2005 (published on 5 April 2005), Volume 1, page
11.
Document 53 Council news statement New scrutiny for Islamic schools plan (first
published 12 December 2001).
Document 54 Documents in ‘red folder’, including:
(1) Papers relating to sustainable construction, thermal insulation, energy
efficiency;
(2) Historic photograph of Darwen; map of southern reaches of the town;
(3) Chronology of Eccles Shorrock and related historical material;
(4) Papers relating to India Mill;
(5) Text, drawing and photograph relating to Primitive Methodist New
Chapel, Redearth Road;
(6) Papers relating to Sunnybank Mill;
(7) Extracts from the Darwen News (1964) relating to flooding;
(8) Brochure on Spring Vale Methodist Church (1974);
(9) Leaflet Paper, Paint and Potters – a tour of historical sites in Darwen
(2004);
(10) Extract from History and Traditions of Darwen and its People
(Book 1);
(11) Bundle of letters & questionnaire responses from former residents of
the Order area.
Page 61
Document 55 Documents in ‘blue folder’, including:

(1)Extract from The Way We Live Now (Polly Toynbee);
(2)Papers relating to Marchaven Services Limited and its Directors;
(3)Letter 10 October 2005 from Mr David Greenfield of Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Council to Mr Huggill regarding housing condition
survey carried out by Marchaven Services Ltd for the Council in 1999;
(4)Report to members on Private House Condition Survey and possible
Strategy for Private Housing, 9 September 1999;
(5)Briefing paper for Executive meeting, 25 January 2000;
(6)David Adamson & Partners Ltd – Abbreviated Accounts for year ended
28 February 2005;
(7)Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council’s Private House Condition
Survey Consultant’s Brief (issued to Messrs Adamson);
(8)Table prepared by Mr Huggill identifying errors and omissions on
Adamson’s survey forms.
(9)Extract from Marchaven’s 1999 report;
(10)BBC website transcript of part of File on Four radio programme (8
March 2005);
(11)Photographs of Nicola Street ‘facelift’ and miscellaneous photographs
of the Order area;
(12)Letter 27 April 2006 from Mrs Christine Oldfield from Mrs S
Macalister (Neighbourhood Services Manager, Blackburn with Darwen
Borough Council), and Mrs Macalister’s reply indicating that neither
Mr Graham Burgess from the Council nor any representative of Messrs
Adamson would be appearing at the inquiry;
(13)Letter 26 October 2004 to Miss J Wood, 15 Star Street from Network
Rail regarding stability of land in the area;
(14)Darwen Academy: Geotechnical and Environmental Desk Top Study –
Buro Happold, April 2005;
(15)Email 18 October 2005 to Mr Huggill from Mr B Whittaker of
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council relating to notices served by
the Council under the Housing Acts in the Redearth Triangle area over
a 10 year period;
(16)Papers relating to the statutory process under section 289 of the
Housing Act 1985, and to the Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment
(NRA);
(17)Appendix 1 to the proof of evidence of Mr D B Corden to the public
inquiry into The Borough of Pendle No. 101 (Nelson (West) No. 1)
Compulsory Purchase Order 2001;
(18)Papers relating to house prices in Darwen and elsewhere;
Page 62
(19)Minutes of the Executive Board, Blackburn with Darwen Borough

Council, 16 October 2003;
(20)Extract from Barker review Final Report Executive Summary (page 5);
(21)Webpage relating to actions to secure the repossession of dwellings;
(22)Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council webpage Building Schools
for the Future;
(23)Current Appointments Report for Darwen Academy Trust, 28 April
2006;
(24)Decision notice relating to the Academy;
(25)Report & Accounts, The Capita Group Plc, 31 December 2004;
(26)Other papers related to the proposed Academy, including notes on
viability of the scheme;
(27)Extracts from Circular 05/2003 Housing Renewal and Annex A to
Circular 17/96 Private Sector Renewal: a Strategic Approach;
(28)Environmental Health Journal Archive, January 2000 Rising Damp and
Breaking Mould;
(29)Extract from inspector’s report following Whitefield CPO inquiry (page
47);
(30)Extract from Private Sector House Condition Survey 2002 report by
DAP Consultancy for Isle of Wight Council;
(31)Table prepared by Mr Huggill and other documents in relation to
vacancy of dwellings;
(32)Notes on an historic walk in Darwen;
(33)Copy of leaflet on James H Morton.
Document 56 Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment Guidance Manual, Department of the

Environment (1992).
Document 57 Times Educational Supplement webpage article Concern over Capita
chief’s philanthropy (18 March 2005).
Document 58 Internet article Poor Housing and Ill Health: A Summary of Research
Evidence (from www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/documents/poor-housing).
Document 59 References to the Barker Report, from Mid Sussex Westminster Report
(www.nicholassoames.org.uk)
Document 60 Extract from Barker Review Interim Report (pages 177-208).
Document 61 Extract from Darwen Academy Planning Statement and Design Framework
(Robert Turley Associates, May 2005).
Document 62 DOE Report extract comparing the standard of fitness for human habitation
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the tolerable standard for
Scotland.
Documents put in by Save Britain’s Heritage:
Document 63 Letter dated 17 March 2006 (the day after the appearance of Mr Adam
Wilkinson, the organisation’s Secretary), from Mr Wilkinson to the
Inspector.
Page 63
Document 64 Save Britain’s Heritage leaflet entitled Burnley – Mill-Town Image: Burden
or Asset? – (no date indicated), with attached web pages.
Document 65 Extract from Save Britain’s Heritage leaflet entitled Satanic Mills:
Industrial Architecture in the Pennines (no date indicated).
Document 66 Save Britain’s Heritage publication Pathfinder (28 January 2006).
Document 67 Save Britain’s Heritage press release relating to Order area, 24 August
2004.
Document 68 Letter from Save Britain’s Heritage to Government Office for the North
West, 6 October 2004, with reply.
Document 69 Letter from Save Britain’s Heritage to the Leader of Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Council, 23 August 2004, with reply.
Document 70 Letter from Save Britain’s Heritage to the Leader of Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Council, 6 September 2004, with reply.
Document 71 Letter from Save Britain’s Heritage to the Chief Executive, Elevate East
Lancashire, 5 October 2004, with second letter of reply.
Document 72 Report dated 8 September 2004 from Mr Brian Clancy to Mr and Mrs
Brown of 11 Sunnybank Street, concerning their property.
Document 73 Letter dated 27 September 2004 from Mr Brian Clancy to Mr Sayyed
Osman of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council following public
meeting on 25 August 2004.
Document 74 Letter dated 20 October 2004 from the Chairperson and Secretary of ‘Home
Environments at Redearth Triangle’ to the Chief Executive, Blackburn with
Darwen Borough Council, together with reply from Mr Graham Burgess,
Executive Director (Regeneration & Technical).
Document 75 Notes of meeting attended by Mr Burgess and Mr Osman, 13 September
2004.
Document 76 Notes of meeting attended by Mr Peter Sciamberella, Mr David Greenfield
and Mr Osman, 14 September 2004.
Document 77 Press report on Darwen property market, November 2004.
Document 78 Estate agents’ particulars of properties in Darwen, 15 March 2006.
Document 79 Extract from The Daily Telegraph, 3 September 2004, about properties in
the Order area.
Documents put in by Mr Brian Clancy:
Document 80 Curriculum Vitae.
Document 81 Letter dated 27 March 2006 from Mr Clancy to the Inquiry Inspector (after
Mr Clancy’s inquiry appearance), with photographs taken by Mr Clancy in
August and September 2004.
Document 82 Bundle of reports of surveys carried out by Mr Clancy on properties within
Order Area (some reports put in by Ms Natasha Jones).
Documents put in by Ms Natasha Lea Jones:
Document 83 Letter 23 August 2004 from Save Britain’s Heritage to the Leader of the
Council.
Document 83a File of copies of letters of objection dated 16 August 2004 from residents of
the proposed Clearance and Order Areas, addressed to the GONW and
copied to the Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council.
Document 84 File of copies of letters from residents of the proposed Clearance and Order
areas requesting full details of the unfitness and repair defects affecting their
properties, addressed to the Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and
copied to the GONW.
Page 64
Document 85 File of copies of survey forms completed by David Adamson & Partners
Ltd and copies of survey reports prepared by Mr Brian Clancy.
Document 86 File of copies of letters of objection of various dates (and many undated),
from residents of the proposed Clearance and Order areas objecting to the
clearance proposals, addressed to the GONW and copied to the Blackburn
with Darwen Borough Council.
Document 87 File of various documents, including:
(1) Delivering a Better Darwin – Newsletter of the Sunnyhurst Ward
Labour Party, winter 03/04.
(2) Evidence sheet prepared for the Darwen Community Group ‘Home
Environments at Redearth Triangle’ (HEART), 16 January 2005.
(3) Letter 9 May 2005 from the ODPM to Mr F P Sciamberella, 34
Sudell Road.
(4) Letter 20 October 2004 from Ms Jones and Mrs Oldfield to Mr S
McDonald, GONW.
(5) Correspondence between Ms J Wood, 15 Star Street and Network
Rail regarding subsidence issue.
(6) Copy letters dated 27 September 2004 from Mr Brian Clancy to
Mr Osman, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and dated 23
August 2004 from Save Britain’s Heritage to the leader of the
Council.
(7) Email 11 October 2004 from Mr Clancy to Mr Osman, and letter
in reply.
(8) Letter 4 November 2004 from Mr Clancy to Mr Osman.
(9) Exchange of messages between Mr Lee Woods and Councillor
Kevin Connor.
(10) Map of area.
(11) Questionnaire forms.
(12) List of occupied houses (undated).
(13) Minutes of meeting between Ms Jones and Messrs Graham
Burgess and Sayyed Osman, 13 September 2004.
(14) Minutes of meeting between Mr F P Sciamberella and Messrs
David Greenfield and Sayyed Osman, 14 September 2004.
(15) Instructions, NRA Option Appraisal Model.
(16) Petition against ‘Phase 1’ proposals.
(17) Petition against demolition proposals, 19-24 July 2004.
(18) Letter 10 December 2004 from HEART to The Lancashire
Wildlife Trust.
(19) Letter 21 March 2005 from HEART to the Ombudsman’s office
(York).
(20) Copies of letters from residents addressed to the Prince of Wales
and Mrs C Blair.
(21) Letter 24 August 2004 from Cllr D Smith to Ms Jones.
(22) Bundle of correspondence.
(23) Map indicating in green areas of housing demolished after 1963.
(24) Questions to be asked at Redearth Area Consultation Meeting, 25
August 2004, and minutes of meeting.
(25) Briefing papers for residents attending meeting on 2 September
2004.
Page 65
(26) Papers relating to Community Meeting at St Peter’s Church, 12

September 2004.
(27) Slides of PowerPoint presentation.
(28) Letter to Northern Counties Housing Association from some of its
tenants.
(29) List of Contents of Report of the Panel into the Examination of the
Joint Lancashire Structure Plan, March 2004.
Document 88 Written Evidence to House of Commons ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local
Government and the Regions Committee (HC 295-11) on Empty Homes and
Low-demand Pathfinders, with particular reference to Memorandum by the
Darwen Community Group ‘Home Environments at Redearth Triangle’
(HEART) (EMP 03)
Document 89 House of Commons ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the
Regions Committee (HC 295-1) on Empty Homes and Low-demand
Pathfinders, Eighth Report of Session 2004-2005, Volume 1.
Document 90 Bundle of letters from Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council of
Intention to include a Building in a Clearance Area.
Document 91 Bundle of documents from Mrs Christine Oldfield, 16 Redearth Street,
marked ‘Barrister’.
Document 92 Papers relating to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Executive
Board meeting, 16 September 2004.
Other documents:
Document 93 Written Statement of Ms Sylvia Wilson, Secretary, Homes Under Threat
(HUT).
Document 94 Written Statement and covering letter from Ms Lynne Walker BA(Hons)
MA, Historic Buildings Officer, Council for British Archaeology.
Document 95 Letter dated 9 December 2005 from Mr D R Hilary to the Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors (RICS) regarding survey good practice, and reply from
RICS (put in by Mr Hilary).
Document 96 Working sheets taken from the Council’s Neighbourhood Renewal
Assessment methodology, as applied by Mr West (put in by him).
PLANS
Plan A Order map, as submitted.

Plan B Order map, with modifications sought by the Council.
Plan C Map of the Franklin Street No. 2 (Darwen) Clearance Area.
Plan D Map of the Hannah Street/Star Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas 1 & 2.
Plan E Map of the Sunnybank Street (Darwen) Clearance Area.
Plan F Map of the Redearth Street (Darwen) Clearance Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Plan G Annotated map of South Darwen area (put in by Mr Huggill).
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photos 1 to 69 Photographs of Objection properties (put in by the Council).

Photo 70 ‘Photo 1’ appended to Mrs McAlister’s proof.
Photos A to H & J Photographs of 8 Redearth Street (put in by Mr Allen Walker).
Photos 71 to 89 Album of photographs (put in by Ms Natasha Lea Jones)
Page 66

Insp Report Blackburn HMR

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Insp Report Blackburn HMR

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CPO Report to the Secretary The Planning Inspectorate

Temple Quay House

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Date 19 July 2006

HOUSING ACT 1985 (PART IX)

BOROUGH OF BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN

Inquiry opened on 14 March 2006

File Ref: HNW/5286/8/112

File Ref: HNW/5286/8/112

PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND STATUTORY FORMALITIES

appropriate redevelopment. Whilst issues over the appropriateness of the Academy

Reference 44 – 26 Sudell Road

Reference 137 – 4 Sunnybank Street

Response by the Council

Response by the Council

Reference 154 – 5 Lower Cross Street

Response by the Council

Ms Natasha Lea Jones

Save Britain’s Heritage (SAVE) (Mr Adam Wilkinson, Secretary)

Councillor Roy Davies

Objections from non-qualifying persons

• Desirable to manage regeneration through an independent Trust.

material consideration, but not so significant as to be an overriding factor in the decision as

FOR THE BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Miss Ruth Stockley Of Counsel, instructed by the Director of Legal

FOR THE STATUTORY OBJECTORS:

Mr Nino A Sciamberella Owner occupier of 26 Sudell Road, also

Document 1 List of persons present at the inquiry, on each day.

Document 18 Elevate East Lancashire Housing Market Restructuring Pathfinder: Central

Document 41 Letter dated 27 September 2004 from Mr Clancy to Mr Osman of

Document 55 Documents in ‘blue folder’, including:

(19)Minutes of the Executive Board, Blackburn with Darwen Borough

Document 56 Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment Guidance Manual, Department of the

(26) Papers relating to Community Meeting at St Peter’s Church, 12

Plan A Order map, as submitted.

Photos 1 to 69 Photographs of Objection properties (put in by the Council).

Вам также может понравиться