Drug abuse and arson rife in doomed streets

Published on 28th December 2006 in Letters

Sir - With regard to your article 'My heart bleeds for left-behind residents' (Goole Times, December 7, Page 30) it is good to see that some of the town councillors are at least beginning to recognise the problems faced by the residents of Richard Cooper Street and Phoenix Street.

However, the comment made by the ERYC spokesman that "the contractor is trialling solid-steel doors which if successful will be rolled out to the remaining council-owned properties" makes me very wary. Does this mean that they intend to 'secure' them in the same manner that the existing properties have been secured? This appears to me to have been done with cheap padlocks attached to bolts that unscrew; grills that roll up to allow access; doors left open behind the grills, etc. And just when will this happen?

Do we have to have a fatality down these streets before ERYC actually does something for the benefit of the community and not for their coffers? How are they planning to tackle those houses where access has been obtained through the roof of the rear ground floor extension? These properties are extremely vulnerable, and their current state demonstrates to me the complete disregard and contempt with which the ERYC appear to me to be treating the remaining residents.

In addition to the lack of security, just what is ERYC planning to do about arson, vandalism, drug abuse, and excrement which is now rife down the rear alleyways of these streets and goes on undetected and unrestricted.

In my opinion this whole exercise, from the day it was formally executed on December 7, 2004 has been badly planned, badly implemented and badly managed, with scant regard for the views of the community. Isn't it now time that ERYC came clean and told everyone who is suffering as a result of this ill-conceived botch just what they intend to build to replace these homes, and just when they intend to issue the CPOs.

The fact that ERYC is continuing with its voluntary acquisition scheme rather than issuing CPOs is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and suggests to me that the council must have doubts about winning a public inquiry which will inevitably follow the issuing of CPOs. ERYC appears to believe that the longer it can continue to extend the situation, the more likely the residents will be to give up, pack up and move out.

The lack of choice of 'affordable housing' in Goole is highlighted by a recent article in your paper, when the only accommodation on offer to a 'street' resident was Eastgate flats. The fact that that there are no available houses is in itself a condemnation of the Council's demolition policy. There is precious little 'affordable housing' in Goole at the present time. There will be even less if ERYC is successful with its demolition scheme.

Alan Wilson

Boothferry Road, Goole