Government cash claw-back fears after group’s success

Save Britain’s Heritage has been granted leave for a judicial review in January of the Government’s decision to give £35.5m to councils hit by the closure of the housing market renewal programme.

The group doesn’t believe the money should be used to demolish another 5,000 homes, including many traditional terraced homes in cities like Liverpool, which could be refurbished.

Hull was given £3.3m to acquire and demolish 300 1960s “Caspon” homes on the Ings estate in east Hull, with the city council putting in matchfunding of £7.1m. But residents are now concerned that they won’t get the Government money and already delayed plans will again grind to a halt.

Vice-chairman of Ings Residents Association Trevor Branton said: “The houses they are wanting to save in Liverpool are completely different to the ones here. You can’t insulate them. They are wooden houses. It is just farcical.

“Until we get some of the houses demolished and get people out, the new people that are going to come in and do the rebuild can’t do anything.”

Hull Council said there was a “strong possibility” that councils would have to stop work and could be asked to pay back money or use it for refurbishments.

Coun John Black said: “We are delivering what we agreed we would as part of our bid; we will fight to retain this money which has been allocated to improve the lives of our citizens by taking them out of what is now sub standard housing.”

Save has written to councils saying it would be “imprudent” to spend any more of the money until the case has been heard.

Director Clem Cecil said 5,000 houses had been demolished in Liverpool since the scheme - known originally as Pathfinder - began.

She hoped the judgement would “steel Communities Secretary Eric Pickles’ resolve to help residents still in the grip of an extremely destructive policy.”

She said: “We are just trying to tip the balance away from mass demolition to mass refurbishment - of course there will be exceptions, there is housing that will be unacceptable. Each case has to be considered on its merits.”