LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT
650 Clagh Vane and Crossag Farm
Empty properties; timetable for development
1.4. The Hon. Member (Mr Lowey) to ask a Member of the Department of Local Government and theEnvironment:
(a) how many houses are lying empty in Clagh Vane awaiting demolition;
(b) how long have they lain empty;
(c) how much revenue would the Department have received if they had been occupied;
(d) what timetable is now envisaged for the Crossag Farm development ?
The President: Hon. Members, we move on to Question 4 and I call the Hon. Member, Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.
The President: This time, I ask Mrs Christian to reply. Published by © the High Court of Tynwald, 2008
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President.
With regard to part (a) of the Hon. Member’s Question, there are five dwellings that are currently not tenanted and there are two more about to be vacated in the near future. The Department is developing proposals for new replacement dwellings on the Douglas Roadfrontage of Clagh Vane
estate and the Treasury has recently approved a business case which has enabled the Department to begin to work up the proposals in detail.
These proposals include the demolition of the existing dwellings, which are now almost 60 years old, in poor condition, including their supporting infrastructure, and cannot economically be refurbished.
With regard to part (b) of the Hon. Member’s Question, I can advise that two dwellings were vacated in February 2007, one dwelling in February 2008, two dwellings in April 2008, and the Department is continuing to liaise with the remaining tenants with a view to agreeing transfers to alternative dwellings as
suitable homes become available.
In relation to part (c), I can advise that the income from the vacated dwellings would have been 680 £15,712.24, including rates. Finally, with regard to part (d) of the Hon. Member’s Question, I regret I am unable to advise when the
Department might be in a position to commence development of much-needed homes on the Crossag Farm site. As Hon. Members are aware, the decision of the Council of Ministers not to grant planning approval to the Department’s planning application in 2007 is the subject of a petition of doleance submitted by the 685 proposed developer. I understand that pleadings in the petition will be heard in the courts on 3rd, 4th and 5th December.
So, the Department is not in a position to understand what actions are required to move this project forward until the courts have ruled on the outstanding petition and that the judgment of the court is received.
We are hopeful that this will become clearer early in 2009 and then the Department will be in a position to update Hon. Members.
The President: Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: Would the Hon. Member not agree that four of the properties are in one block – two bungalows and the two houses – which are on the main road, which I do not need to tell the Hon. Member is the main road from the Airport and to see derelict properties lying boarded up is not the best welcome to the Isle of Man?
Would she also not agree that these houses should be demolished and buildings already put on them, because if and when we get the Crossag Roaddevelopment, this is part of the area for decanting, so why can
they not be demolished now? Though that particular block in particular… to let buildings lie empty for, at least, nine months – in some cases they are longer than that – is not a good advert for DoLGE or for the homeless people who are looking for houses.
The President: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: I obviously can agree that they are on the main road from the Airport and it is undesirable to have empty houses boarded up on that approach. It is also undesirable to have empty houses.
However, the process of decanting people from the block of buildings – and there are 12 that are due to be demolished and rebuilt – takes some time. I accept that the vacation of the property in February 2000 means that that property has been vacant for a very long period of time. Perhaps the Department jumped the gun in anticipating that they might have had new properties to decant these people to on Crossag Farm but that, as we are aware, has gone by the board for the time being.
The Department has, as I say, produced a business case to go the Treasury for the development of the whole of that unit. I am not in a position to answer why they cannot redevelop one small element of it at this time. I am not quite sure whether it would be more speedy to do that than to get the whole thing tackled at
once. The planning application is due, I think, to go for consideration in December for the whole of the area and the approval of Treasury has been given to the financial position for work to start in 2009-10.
Clearly at the moment, there is consideration being given to bringing forward certain parts of the Department’s works. However, at the same time, there are other people living in the vicinity and it is the Department’s wish to try and meet their needs before moving them out of their homes.
The President: Mr Lowey. Published by © the High Court of Tynwald, 2008
Mr Lowey: Would the Member in charge of answering the Question not agree – I pass these houses every day of my life at the end of my road, so I know them well – if we are waiting for the blocks to be completed, all 12 of them, we will be waiting...? We have been waiting now for two and a half years but when we agreed Crossag Farm, we realised that this was the area which we needed to start the operation of refurbishing the estate. So, we have been waiting for two and a half years. We have still not decanted the people out of all of those houses. So, two and half years have gone by. We do have a large section of that on the main road which could, in my view at least, have been demolished if not rebuilt on, but at least, they could be demolished, and that is the urgency that I asked the Minister of the day two and half years ago to take up and to do it step by step instead of waiting for the whole lot to come empty. If we are waiting for the whole lot, we will be waiting for a long time and my point is that these houses are lying empty. They are an embarrassment to Government for the homeless. It is an embarrassment to visitors coming to the Island to see boarded up properties in an estate that is, as she rightly says, 50 to 60 years old.
The President: I think Mrs Christian acknowledged that. Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Yes. Can I say that it was 2007 when the first house was vacated, so we are not quite two years since the decanting process started, but it is a long period, and I accept that.
The Hon. Member has indicated they could be demolished. I have not got an answer on why they have not been demolished. I do have an answer on why it would be difficult to rehouse them short-term. There are complications in using properties for short-term lets which add further to the requirement to rehouse those people, when you decant them, when the whole project starts, so the Department has avoided putting people into those houses short-term, because people, by and large, did not want to live there.
On the other hand, there are people there who still have to be decanted and do not want to move, so the Department has a very delicate balancing act to do. To move people when they get properties available – and we have not got any new build down there just at the moment – and secondly, when people are willing to
move. So, they are doing their best to be good landlords, I think, in this context.
I have no answers to why the unit by the road has not been demolished, where the Member has indicated that it is empty.
Mr Lowey: There are four.
Mrs Christian: On the plan I saw, I thought there were some adjacent to them which were still occupied. However, I will take local knowledge into account here and say I will take this back to the Department to see whether they consider that there would be any merit in demolishing them, now that they are vacated.
Reproduced from Hansard.