Crystal Road: £1.45m spent so far

“The Fylde Coast Housing Strategy and the Council’s Housing Statement recognise that the housing supply within Blackpool’s inner areas is acutely unbalanced. The unbalanced nature of the supply is driving social deprivation and having a negative impact on the economic performance of the town.”

- Helen France, Corporate Director of the Places Directorate

I have written about the Homes and Communities Agency pilot scheme going on in the Crystal Road area a couple of times now, with very little hard information to go on. I have a bit more now after the council responded to a Freedom of Information Act request in relation to this project.

Many poignant questions were asked, probing for impropriety given that two councillors have already benefited from this scheme by almost £200k.

In total, twelve properties have been purchased by the council on Crystal Road. It was originally stated in the Gasjet that the council was buying up ‘empty properties’ but this is obviously not the case given the acquisition of 25/27 Crystal Road which was according to the vendor generating an income of £20,020.

Here are the qualifying criteria for a property to be targeted by the council:

Vacant and derelict properties

Blocks of property and sites with early development potential

Properties in use as HMOs

Properties converted into flats and flatlets

Non trading guesthouses at risk of being used as HMOs

Actively trading viable guesthouses immediately adjacent to previously acquired property

In exceptional circumstances, where the property meets one or more of the 6 priorities above and an early acquisition will prevent extreme hardship and it is in the public interest to do so.  Any property identified for this will need to be approved by the Property Acquisition Team before an offer is made.

I suppose number 4 is the one that most closely fits with this acquisition.

Contrary to what I first believed, none of the properties were compulsory purchased and it was never the policy to do so.

“Properties will only be acquired where owners have indicated a willingness to sell.”

- Key Decision CPR/77

So I wonder what came first, the Crystal Road project or a wink and special handshake from Cllrs Fowler?

Up to now, the total amount spent on acquiring property on Crystal Road is £1.45million: the most expensive being £207,500 and at the other end of the scale £45,000. You should bear in mind, though, that the council are seeking to buy properties on many other roads as well, including Tyldesley Road, Rawcliffe Street, Moore Street, Dean Street, Bright Street, Clare Street, Pleasant Street, Lord Street and High Street. It is, I believe, fair to say that the overall cost just to acquire these properties could run into tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

On top of this amount will be the cost of actually renovating them.

It’s all fine and dandy if you’ve got tons of money. However, in May this year, Peter Callow said to the Gasjet;

“The Government has no money so we are going to have to look after ourselves now.”

So who is paying for 25/27 Crystal Road? Whose money has gone into the vendor’s bank? The same people that are funding half of the Pleasure Beach revamp! The defence of this spending comes from Helen France;

“The current market conditions within Blackpool’s inner areas do mean that such investment would not take place without public sector support hence why the Council is pursuing this strategy.”

Talking of money, lets look at the valuation of 25/27 Crystal Road. Keppie Massey are the nominated valuers for this project and according to Helen France they were selected from a Homes and Communities Agency panel following a competitive tendering process. Fair enough.

France went on to say,

“The valuation report does not, however, specify how the opinion of valuation has been assessed, and, more specifically does not state what reliance the rents have in the opinion of value.”

And defends the valuation by saying that;

“The rental levels quoted are in line with current market levels and there is a recognised demand from prospective tenants in the area for the type of accommodation offered.”

This is also fair enough, but I think the point that must be highlighted is that Keppie Massey didn’t say whether they based the valuation on the rents that the vendor put forward. It may not have affected the valuation, but on the other hand it could have driven it up significantly. And if it did, it really doesn’t matter whether they were ‘in line with market levels’: we need to be seeing proof that it was tenanted and actually generating the income that the vendor, Cllr Fowler, has put forward.

In an age of transparency, particularly given that a councillor is a beneficiary, it is very sloppy for the valuers to keep their methodology under wraps.

It is entirely feasible that the vendor could have put a fake income on there and profited by thousands.