Hundreds of Blackpool families to be evicted in ‘mass dispersion’ of vulnerable people | Housing

Hundreds of families in one of England’s poorest neighbourhoods will be evicted under a £90m plan described by critics as a “mass dispersion” of vulnerable people.

Four hundred homes in Blackpool will be bulldozed this summer and replaced with 230 new properties under levelling up proposals signed off by Rishi Sunak’s government. The area has more than 800 people – about 250 of them children – who are in the poorest 10th of the population of England, according to official documents.

Matthew Lockwood, a church leader, said residents were “bewildered, angry and distraught” and risked being made homeless in a “mass dispersion of statistically some of the most vulnerable people in the country”.

Chris Webb, the Labour MP for Blackpool South, is understood to have raised concerns about the scheme after an angry and emotional public meeting last month.

The demolitions in the Rydal Avenue area of central Blackpool highlight Britain’s chronic shortage of affordable housing and the urgent need to improve lives in areas of entrenched poverty.

Blackpool council insists the project is a vital part of the “systematic and wholesale” regeneration of the town. Lynn Williams, the local authority’s leader, said: “I can’t comprehend how any community leader can say regenerating one of the most deprived areas of the country is a bad thing.”

Residents have raised concerns that the demolitions will worsen the seaside town’s housing crisis by significantly reducing the number of affordable properties.

Blackpool has one of the lowest levels of social housing in England – about 10% of all properties, compared with 17% nationwide. Nearly 12,000 households were on the social housing waiting list this year, according to official figures.

The council was awarded £90m by Michael Gove, the former levelling up secretary, in March last year as part of the Homes England agenda.

It plans to demolish up to 400 “poor quality” houses and replace them with 230 “high quality, energy efficient” properties, including upmarket townhouses.

It said a large number of the homes to be flattened did not meet basic living standards and were unsafe, empty or overcrowded. Inspections of 679 homes found that two-thirds had a category one hazard – meaning a risk to life or serious injury – and 74% did not meet the decent homes standard.

However, a masterplan for the area produced in partnership with Blackpool council in 2019 described many of the homes as “good quality” and an “excellent example of early 20th century terraced housing that has been proven suitable for a successful and sustainable residential community”.

A council impact assessment identifies more than 800 people in the regeneration zone, including 50 toddlers and about 200 children aged under 15. A quarter of the residents are disabled and about 80 are over 65.

Lockwood said about 300 families would be evicted under the scheme and the anxiety and “powerlessness” was exacerbating their mental distress.

In October, a coroner ruled that the council’s forced purchase of a 34-year-old resident’s house under a separate regeneration plan had contributed to his suicide.

An inquest heard that Alistair Taylor, a barber and father of four, felt “bullied, cajoled and intimidated” by the council before it seized his home to make way for a £54m education campus last year.

The coroner, Alan Wilson, ruled that the compulsory purchase order played a “more than minimal role” in his death and described the council’s approach as having a “lack of focus and thought but not ill feeling”.

A council spokesperson said it could not say how many of the 230 new homes would be social or affordable housing. However, they said two similar schemes had been wholly social housing and had lowered poverty levels.

Williams said officials had held “dozens” of sessions for residents and had engaged with the community for nearly a year. She added: “It’s absolutely not lost on us that we are talking about people’s homes and we’re very conscious that for tenants and local residents this kind of change can be unsettling.”

One of the residents due to be evicted, Paul Kimberlin, said he would fight the bulldozers “all the way”.

Kimberlin, 64, bought his three-bedroom property with his partner in 2018 because they had always wanted to live by the sea.

His partner died from cancer in July and the house they shared meant “everything” to him, he said, adding: “I’m suffering with depression from losing my husband and anxiety and stress from what’s going on – the council are causing me so much heartache.

“This is a perfectly warm property. There’s nothing wrong with it and there’s nowhere to move to – there’s a shortage of housing in the whole country so why are they knocking 400 down to build 230?”

Kimberlin said he turned down the council’s offer of the market value of his house, £96,000, plus £15,000 in compensation: “That wouldn’t buy a hovel down South Shore [in Blackpool]. It wouldn’t buy a cardboard box and if it did it would be damp.

“I’m not moving so they’re going to have to drag me out of here in handcuffs”.

His neighbours, Brian and Rose Timmins, said they had reluctantly agreed to leave their beloved Victorian terrace after the council offered to move them into supported accommodation.

Brian, 78, said the house had been in his family since it was built a century ago: “I don’t want to move but we haven’t got much choice. There’s no damp, no cold – structurally there’s nothing wrong with these properties. The only way we planned to leave was feet first through the front door. I’ll be sad to see it go.”

Another resident, who did not want to be named, said the prospect of being evicted by her landlord was “traumatic” because no properties were available for the £650 a month rent she pays for her and her four children, aged eight to 15.

“We’ve been told by the council to look at private rented but all the available properties are £1,300 a month – there’s no way I can afford that. I’d like to see the area nice but if we want to come back we would have to apply and they would be far too expensive.”