18 CONTEXT 181 : SEPTEMBER 2024 Miners’ cottages in Princes Street, Eastwood, before renovation building of historic interest. Unable to demolish it, the council planned to surround it with a development of 209 nondescript, low-rise flats, surrounded by lawns, that would remove any context for the house and possibly pave the way to get rid of it at a later date. At the end of March 1974, along with the rest of the urban and rural districts of England, Eastwood Council was due to disappear and be replaced by a bigger local authority whose town hall was 12 miles away in Broxtowe. Councillors wanted to finish the demolition before they left office. But in late 1973, the new borough council set up a pilot team of town planners, of which I was one. We saw a chance, both to save some local heritage and make new plans that were more in line with what residents had told us they wanted. They liked living close to the main street and most wanted their houses kept and improved. The now defunct Eastwood Advertiser took up the case. Responding to public pressure, the old council reluctantly agreed to await the production of an alternative scheme. A survey was carried out and a new plan prepared that would retain as many as possible of the miners’ cottages and put in new housing where demolition had already created gaps. There was an exhibition of the rival schemes, followed by a public meeting and a council debate. Public opinion began to turn. Two opinion surveys showed over 80 per cent support for retaining and improving the remaining homes, in part because residents were well aware that if demolition took place many of them would be rehoused at a distance from the town centre and its facilities. Although the old council refused to change its plans, it was running out of time to rehouse any remaining families and carry out further demolitions. But although its proposals had been thwarted, it kept quiet about a hidden threat to the new project. The coal mines in which Lawrence’s father had worked were in the last decade of their life, but a new seam was to be driven directly under the old streets, threatening subsidence and requiring the work to be put on hold. It was only when the new council took over that staff found the files with the coal board’s warnings. We were horrified to discover that a year’s delay would be necessary to assess the effects of subsidence on the buildings and, if necessary, correct them. We struggled to keep residents’ confidence, as the old council had been moving slowly and the promised start on site would have to be deferred still further. Finally, late in 1976, work began: 92 houses that had been bought by the council for demolition were kept and rehabilitated, private owners of the remaining houses were offered grants to improve them and 96 new houses, designed to fit into the area, were built on the sites of those already cleared. Environmental improvements would include reconstruction of a lengthy retaining wall needed because of the sloping site, and partial closures of streets to allow tree planting and remove a rat-run used by traffic wishing to avoid Eastwood’s main shopping street. Partly to maintain residents’ confidence in the area’s future, it was declared a general improvement area (GIA) under the Housing Act 1969. GIAs were, in part, a government response to the growing clamour against slum clearance in the 1960s, which saw the widespread disappearance of pre-1919 houses, many
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=