10/3/05: West End Residents who complain that they are being overrun by commercial development interests in league with the council to the future detriment of their community have been accused by Cllr David Whittaker of being 'mischievous' and having 'hidden agendas'.

"I'm still waiting for my agenda", says resident Chas Ambler. Read his latest analysis of the West End Regeneration scheme.

WEST END DEGENERATION

The ‘months of public consultation’ supposedly carried out have included one public display at Heysham School and one public meeting at the Platform and……. months. Months where the small group actually making the decisions, only one of whom lives in the West End have gone away and changed lots of things that they have neglected to inform us, the mere residents of the area, about.

The Masterplan going before the council this week is not the plan that the large group of residents complained about at the Platform meeting. The changes made have been a lot more than the Battery car park development that was always a totally unresearched and implausible ‘loss leader’, an obviously absurd idea that was never going to happen. These other changes have never been mentioned outside the privileged group.

The ‘major developments to include restaurants, bars and leisure facilities’ are not part of this phase and are pure fantasy at the moment – like the St Martins Campus (that has no funding at the moment). As Councillor Bryning admitted the other day, any schemes for bringing employment to this area are part of ‘later phases’. Meanwhile at least 30 jobs will disappear as local businesses are demolished.

The only plans actually made are for houses (the whole thing is, after all, being run by the housing, not the economic development committee). These houses will be sold to transients, the sort who buy new houses to take advantage of the rise in value that tends to happen with new houses, and who then move on in two years having contributed nothing to the area, and whose cars will further clog Skerton Bridge as they commute to their jobs in Lancaster and points south – because there’s no jobs coming here in the plan.

Apparently the more the house costs the more capable its occupants will be to ‘support local businesses’. Capable yes But - willing? People with enormous mortgages to service have to work all hours. They arrive back with just enough energy to watch the TV. Take outs do flourish, but not much else. The New Transients are never around in the day time. They’ve had to join the queue over Skerton Bridge. They shop at a big supermarkets where any surpluses are ploughed back into the USA. They get their vehicle serviced while they’re at work. The only reason they bought a place in Morecambe is because it was cheap. If they could afford Lancaster they would. They’re full of affection for Morecambe and I’m sure they’ll greatly enhance the cultural life. Lets hope so, because a hell of a lot of cultural life is just being ripped up and tossed aside along with viable local businesses.

Mr Donnellon’s ideas about changing the tenure of housing are particularly interesting in light of the fact that the council don’t actually know the tenure of the housing they intend to knock down (a lot more than just a section of Chatsworth Road and including, for instance, three quarters of Bold Street where there are only three houses in multiple occupancy). ‘Changing tenure’ means getting rid of people who pay rent and replacing them with owner occupiers.

It also has a sub-text of getting rid of junkies. Apart from the fact that they don’t know where these junkies are, never having surveyed the houses (183) due for compulsory purchase, they obviously are not aware how often junkies tend to move. When you’ve been moving seven times a year for years moving is not a problem. If on the other hand, you’ve been renting the same place for decades it is. The junkies will remain in the West End – with richer pickings. The decent tenants who make up the fabric of the local community will be driven out to be replaced by commuters who come here to sleep – for a while. Or of course they could take advantage of ‘shared ownership’ – which in my case means paying three times as much for a smaller house.

As far as I am concerned there has been no real consultation about this scheme which I believe will set back the natural regeneration of Morecambe that was beginning to happen when I came here by a generation as the rips in the fabric of the community gradually repair themselves. Show me one such scheme that has worked.

In the West End regeneration plan ‘tackling the over supply of poor quality private rented accommodation’ is code for getting rid of rented accommodation. The housing department officials driving this plan also imagine they are going to get rid of the junkies as well. The only problem is they don’t know where they are. They don’t even know the tenancy status of the houses they are intending to knock down (including a whole terrace of family sized houses in Bold St your article neglected to mention) or ‘remodel’. Remodelling means taking houses from the people who live in them, making them smaller (apparently we all want smaller houses), and selling them to people who can afford them – very unlikely to be the same people.

The phrase ‘in the blueprint’ is cunningly chosen in relation to the St Martin’s Campus. This concept is merely a fancy in the minds of the council. There is no funding for it. In all of this plan there is not a single job created – except for architects, consultants, builders and council officials. No one who actually lives here will gain anything from this plan but those of us who live in the 183 houses to be forcibly purchased will lose our homes. “We are on track with our plans to see Morecambe become a prime location to live, work and play” says Councillor Bryning. Less and smaller houses, absolutely no extra employment (a loss of at least 30 jobs in fact) and not a single leisure facility (other than a small park 200 yards from Regent Park): this is “on track”? I think a few people are on track to make a lot of money – but none of them live in the West End of Morecambe.

At least Councillor Bryning doesn’t have the nerve to claim that the people of the West End support the scheme – “the plan has a lot of support from key agencies” is all he claims; key agency workers whose jobs depend on these sort of projects (can anyone tell me of one that’s succeeded?). Local people showed what they thought about it at the only public meeting I’m aware of - at the Platform. They made their contempt of the absurd idea of building luxury flats on the Battery car park clear. That was dropped. Not surprising considering it was outside the sea defences and entirely unresearched. They didn’t research it because they never had any intention of doing it (as Councillor Sands suggested at a meeting organised by the Residents Association, referring to it as a ‘loss leader’).

But I also don’t remember a huge enthusiasm for the car park with a flower bed on top that is being touted as a major new amenity on the promenade – I wonder if they’ve run that past the gardeners? In fact I didn’t detect any enthusiasm for any of the plan from anybody at the meeting -–but then we don’t earn our living tearing communities apart.

Chas Ambler