Demolition Derby

This is not one of the estates so frequently stereotyped by government and media alike. There are no high-rise blocks, no no-go areas, no needles and syringes lying in doorways, we have the occasional drunk or drug addict and the occasional bout of vandalism and car theft but the incidence is no greater than is experienced on the leafy streets of Middle England. If it were not for the fact that the properties have that council-built look about them this could be Middle England, the majority of the properties have been bought under right-to-buy, many sold on for prices that only the very well-paid could afford, partly because this is a green leafy area in a very expensive small town and partly because we have a very good and over-subscribed secondary school a few hundred yards away. The Thatcherite policy of right-to-buy has created the mixed communities so beloved of New Labour but at the cost of the poor in towns like this who have little or no access to affordable rented social housing.

With the exception of one small block of flats, every property has gardens and the front gardens lead to narrow, tree-lined roads, many with just enough room for two cars to pass, the legacy of building in an era when car ownership was not the norm, particularly for the low-paid. And we have an awful lot of cars, it's not unusual for families to have two cars, some have more and some have vehicles they use for their trade. So we have a parking problem, narrow streets and two-car families and, just to exacerbate the problem, the road parallel to the school road is used by parents as a drop-off and collection point at the beginning and end of each school day and don't let's forget all the sixth-formers old enough to drive cars who leave their vehicles during school hours on the street where their parents used to drop them off and pick them up.

It would seem logical to acknowledge that as there is already parking congestion that there is a need for both off-street parking and the provision of garages for residents. Garage blocks along with parking bays in the garage areas existed long before we moved here. This is about to, in fact has, changed. Virtually all, if not all, it's hard to keep track of the planning applications, the garages owned by the housing association in this small town are to be demolished and houses, two-bedded terraced houses, built on the garage block plots. Whether these are intended for social rent, shared ownership or market rent or sale is unknown.

This mass demolition includes my garage but it and the other garages in our blocks are exceptional, our garages are to be demolished to make way for parking bays. On enquiring this has more to do with the cost of maintaining the garages, something that has not been done for at least three years, than providing relief for parking congestion, the number of parking bays will barely exceed the parking provision that already existed. We haven't been consulted, the only communication prior to the decision being made being a questionnaire asking what we used our garages for. Planning and change of use regulations don't apply so we have had no means of objecting via the planning system either.

The demolition of the garages has been an ongoing rumour for around three years, when we received the questionnaire I was personally assured by a member of the development team that our garages were unlikely to be effected. This matters to me, I have mobility problems and I was allocated the garage close to my home in what was an area with a long waiting list after the intervention of an Occupational Therapist due to my previous garage being increasingly difficult to walk to and from. I had also had my car vandalised when I left it out in the garage area while my garage was used for storage when we had the property decorated in 2003 so I feel, not unsurprisingly, the need for secure parking. I explained all this on the back of the questionnaire along with the obvious difficulties for all residents if access to secure parking was removed and there was an overall reduction in parking provision.

After occasional flurries of activity, including site inspections but no information provided on the purpose of these investigations, in November 2007 we were informed that by 2009 our garages would be demolished, in the week before Easter this year we had a hand-delivered letter stating that we would be given as much notice as possible, on Easter Saturday, with no-one available at the housing association to speak to until the following Tuesday, we received notice to quit by 21 April. (Actually, my husband who doesn't own a car, has never owned a car, doesn't drive and has never driven, received the notice to quit despite the fact that the tenancy agreement is my name. Clearly the housing association believes that their tenants live in a pre-1960s time-warp where female tenants don't experience the same level of independence and autonomy as other female members of society and that we rely on our husbands to deal with all aspects of our lives, indeed all correspondence is addressed exclusively to my husband despite the fact ours is a joint tenancy and I deal with all our affairs, including housing issues.)

All garage tenants received the garage rent increase notification for the financial year commencing 7 April, I rang and offered to pay by credit card, it seemed pointless setting up a standing order to cover only two weeks, the finance department were unaware that the garages were to be demolished and that we had notice to quit. On Friday a neighbour, an ex-tenant of another garage area, came home to be told by another neighbour that the long outstanding repair to his garage door had been dealt with that day, he checked and it had, he too had been evicted from his garage on 21 April. It appears that the association not only has a problem communicating with its tenants but also between departments.

Some tenants removed their cars and refused to pay their garage rents for the remaining two weeks, one has told me that he's received unpleasant letters from the housing association demanding payment. He also tells me that another tenant has received three threatening letters, I haven't seen these letters so I'm unable to judge how unpleasant or threatening they are but there is no doubt about the anger many garage tenants feel about the way in which the issue has been handled.

Two days after the eviction date and without prior warning fencing was erected round the garage area despite cars parked in the area surrounding the garage bocks being unable to be moved as a consequence. After complaints, one from me who had, after an initial suggestion of possible help from the association in clearing my garage which didn't materialise, been given an additional week to enable me to pay for help, the fencing was removed and is still removed. No-one now knows what will happen next, I was originally told demolition would commence in the week starting 28 April then that it would probably be post 12 May. As our property is extremely close to one of the garage blocks, the one in which my car was garaged, we don't consider it unreasonable to be notified in advance of the demolition.

Finally, I've yet to speak to anyone who, other than the residents whose properties overlook the garage area, intends to use the parking bays that are to replace our garages, all intend to park outside their homes rather than leave their cars in an unsecured parking area where they can't see them.

I have no problem with garages being demolished to make way for social housing for rent. I do have a problem with an organisation that believes that it can remove an amenity without any attempt at consultation and without an impact assessment involving residents to identify the problems that the loss of this amenity will cause both to individuals and the community as a whole. I do have a problem with an organisation that is willing to impose costs on its tenants in the interests of reducing its own costs, the rent receipts from the garages have never been ring-fenced for maintenance and repairs, the condition of garages has been allowed to deteriorate, possibly in order to justify their demolition, cost of maintenance and repair being cited to me as a reason for their disposal. I do have a problem with an organisation that, through lack of consultation is, in the case of our garage blocks, about to remove an amenity to provide an alternative that no-one wishes to use, the fact that they inform me that they may charge for the use of this unwanted alternative merely increases the prospect of the parking bays becoming underutilised.

Ultimately I have a problem with an organisation that shows little or no respect for the people that pay their salaries, that believes that their views are not worth seeking and that they have nothing valid to say, yet are willing to use our rents to pay consultants to provide them with the answers they want.