Voluntary or potentially compulsory depopulations in the UK?

[Bletchleyite]

In the Stranraer line thread it's discussed about the possibility of "shoving it into the sea" - i.e. compulsorily depopulating the settlement.

One example of where this might happen is Fairbourne, where the cost of maintaining the sea defences is increasing as sea levels do and weather conditions worsen, to the point that putting everyone there in social housing elsewhere might well be cheaper (and because of it the owned housing is basically worthless). Though it would also have the cost of relocating or elevating the railway (which I would think very unlikely to close, unless something very radical was done like reinstating the approach to Pwllheli-Criccieth etc from the north and severing the coastal section*).

In the past when a mine or similar was abandoned, the housing often was too - no reason to live there, and no cars to get to work elsewhere. But would that happen to Stranraer even if it was left with no public transport whatsoever? I'd venture that because of its location car ownership is likely to be high there (even though many will be "bangernomics" i.e. cheap used cars) and so this wouldn't happen. There are plenty of other places around the UK where people live that have either zero or pretty useless public transport.

Has it happened anywhere else in the car-ownership era?
* https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...erable-coastal-section-e-g-fairbourne.308232/

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The ferries at Cairnryan are not going away, even if no one uses the railway to reach them, so Stranraer still has a function. It is also the biggest settlement for miles around for the agricultural community. You sound like Geoffrey Howe wanting the 'managed decline' of Liverpool or the plan in the '30s to flood the Rhondda Valley for a reservoir because the problems there were so intractable. North Cornwall and West Devon haven't had a railway for decades (happily partially reversed with Okehampton) but they haven't collapsed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The ferries at Cairnryan are not going away, even if no one uses the railway to reach them, so Stranraer still has a function. It is also the biggest settlement for miles around for the agricultural community. You sound like Geoffrey Howe wanting the 'managed decline' of Liverpool or the plan in the '30s to flood the Rhondda Valley for a reservoir because the problems there were so intractable.

Don't assume that because I've created a thread on the subject that I advocate it. It's just a spinoff from another discussion to avoid going off topic. If you read my post in detail you'll note I don't actually advocate it as the car provides a transport function if there's no public transport at all - plenty of places like that.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think this is one of those things where on a utilitarian/technocratic basis there are strong arguments that some settlements should just be abandoned. I often wonder about some of the former pit villages in County Durham the likes of Horden or Blackhall Colliery (nominative determinism? ). Once the mines shuttered in the late 80s and early 90s what was realistically the point of these settlements anymore? They either didn't exist prior to the mines or were little more than hamlets with a couple of cottages before the mines. Why bother pouring resources into settlements with no purpose? They seem to just now be misery factories to a great degree. We spend vast sums of money on enabling people to live in unremitting poverty for several generations in a row at this point. Wouldn't it be better spent on moving people to places where there is more opportunity?

But, life and humans in general aren't very good at being utilitarian/technocratic. Perhaps its just me but the thought of Horden colliery closing in 1987 and then in 1988 we load the 8,000 odd residents onto buses and ship them around the country to towns and cities feels wrong, feels like something a Fascistic or Stalinist regime would do. The forced displacement of people is something which has a nearly unremittingly dark and grim history. Both here at home but also abroad. Even when done with good intentions it seems to wind up causing tremendous damage. Equally the idea of just saying that you can continue to live in Horden but we're not going to be providing you with any financial support, no benefits, nada unless you move hardly feels equitable either.

Somewhere like Horden can effectively survive in the modern era because we have a welfare state even though the settlements themselves are now exist after their purpose for being created (or expanded) has gone. 100 years ago if Horden colliery had shuttered, the people living in Horden would have depopulated the village themselves because they'd have to find another way of supporting themselves. But is that really a good thing? The sort of poverty we had a 100 years ago makes poverty of today look like a life of luxury. I'm not convinced going back to that is sensible for anyone.

 

[The exile]

Has it happened anywhere else in the car-ownership era?
* https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...erable-coastal-section-e-g-fairbourne.308232/

Not an entire town, but the Clune Park Estate in Port Glasgow is of a comparable size. There’s also been a near complete obliteration of a mining village somewhere in the Valleys but the name escapes me.

 

[Rescars]

For a railway centred example of depopulation and abandonment, Riccarton Junction would seem to be a prime candidate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For a railway centred example of depopulation and abandonment, Riccarton Junction would seem to be a prime candidate.

I guess that's an example of where the loss of the railway basically cut it off. Nowadays that might be different due to the private car - there are plenty of comparable villages in the middle of nowhere that still exist (even near there, e.g. Saughtree), you just have to drive to live there. There are probably rather more in the South East where people just railhead by car to the nearest station and work in London so the money is still there.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I think the only towns we'll see forcibly depopulated are ones like Fairbourne where the tide is forcing it.
Unless someone decides a random town is the perfect place to build a nuclear reactor or other megaproject but I don't really see that happening, the optics of HS2's compulsory purchase was bad enough.

See also for history: Imber, forcibly depopulated by the army for use as a training ground, now only publically accessible 1 day a year on Imberbus

 

[Bletchleyite]

See also for history: Imber, forcibly depopulated by the army for use as a training ground, now only publically accessible 1 day a year on Imberbus

Forgot about that despite having done Imberbus this year! It's a great day out by the way - highly recommended!

 

[Rescars]

I guess that's an example of where the loss of the railway basically cut it off. Nowadays that might be different due to the private car - there are plenty of comparable villages in the middle of nowhere that still exist (even near there, e.g. Saughtree), you just have to drive to live there. There are probably rather more in the South East where people just railhead by car to the nearest station and work in London so the money is still there.

Riccarton Junction is an extreme example. Before 1963 there was no road to it, so the use of a car was not an option. To give some motoring context, the Mini was launched in 1959 and the Ford Cortina in 1962.

 

[AlterEgo]

Imber is famous because of the buses but STANTA (STANford Training Area) has no fewer than six evacuated and depopulated villages.

Stanford, Buckenham Tofts, Langford, Sturston, Tottington, and West Tofts.

 

[swt_passenger]

Riccarton Junction is an extreme example. Before 1963 there was no road to it, so the use of a car was not an option. To give some motoring context, the Mini was launched in 1959 and the Ford Cortina in 1962.

AIUI Riccarton was built by the railway for their staff. It wasn’t an existing settlement so why wouldn’t it have been abandoned?

 

[adc82140]

See also for history: Imber, forcibly depopulated by the army for use as a training ground, now only publically accessible 1 day a year on Imberbus

It's open a little more than that, about 4 weeks a year. You can drive in, cycle, or even walk if you're feeling fit enough. But that doesn't detract from the fact it was very much depopulated with very limited public access.

The same happened at Tyneham in Dorset. It now sits in the middle of some firing ranges, but is open most weekends.

 

[The exile]

AIUI Riccarton was built by the railway for their staff. It wasn’t an existing settlement so why wouldn’t it have been abandoned?

Chances are as well that before the days of “right to buy” all the accommodation would have been tied - so no pesky owner occupiers to confuse the issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

AIUI Riccarton was built by the railway for their staff. It wasn’t an existing settlement so why wouldn’t it have been abandoned?

The railway built lots of settlements which are still populated and in private hands now, even where the railway is long gone. There are rows of railway cottages all over the place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 10:54 ==

Riccarton Junction is an extreme example. Before 1963 there was no road to it, so the use of a car was not an option. To give some motoring context, the Mini was launched in 1959 and the Ford Cortina in 1962.

At the point the railway closed there was a road though. Yes there were cars, but ownership was much lower in the 1960s than now.

 

[swt_passenger]

The railway built lots of settlements which are still populated and in private hands now, even where the railway is long gone. There are rows of railway cottages all over the place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 10:54 ==



At the point the railway closed there was a road though. Yes there were cars, but ownership was much lower in the 1960s than now.

But if Riccarton’s sole purpose was to support railways operations, perhaps it was pretty run down prior to final closure anyway. I don’t believe it was worth keeping. Without railway blinkers on it was just another unnecessary settlement in the middle of nowhere. Like all the demolished pit villages in Durham. People should get over it.

 

[The exile]

The railway built lots of settlements which are still populated and in private hands now, even where the railway is long gone. There are rows of railway cottages all over the place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 10:54 ==



At the point the railway closed there was a road though. Yes there were cars, but ownership was much lower in the 1960s than now.

I suppose the comparable question is how long tge “railway settlement” at Corrour would survive if the West Hoghland were to close permanently tonight. The difference is that in Riccarton’s case, the railway probably still owned (and subsidised) the lot so coukd simply create tabula rasa.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose the comparable question is how long tge “railway settlement” at Corrour would survive if the West Hoghland were to close permanently tonight.

What "railway settlement"? There's a pub and a holiday home and, er, that's it.

The rest of it is hunting estate which isn't reliant on the railway - there is road access, just not public road access (a bit like Altnabreac I suppose). It might kill the hostel, but then again maybe it wouldn't, it is a proper walkers' type place and they might well still visit by way of car and a walk in.

 

[35B]

I think this is one of those things where on a utilitarian/technocratic basis there are strong arguments that some settlements should just be abandoned. I often wonder about some of the former pit villages in County Durham the likes of Horden or Blackhall Colliery (nominative determinism? ). Once the mines shuttered in the late 80s and early 90s what was realistically the point of these settlements anymore? They either didn't exist prior to the mines or were little more than hamlets with a couple of cottages before the mines. Why bother pouring resources into settlements with no purpose? They seem to just now be misery factories to a great degree. We spend vast sums of money on enabling people to live in unremitting poverty for several generations in a row at this point. Wouldn't it be better spent on moving people to places where there is more opportunity?

But, life and humans in general aren't very good at being utilitarian/technocratic. Perhaps its just me but the thought of Horden colliery closing in 1987 and then in 1988 we load the 8,000 odd residents onto buses and ship them around the country to towns and cities feels wrong, feels like something a Fascistic or Stalinist regime would do. The forced displacement of people is something which has a nearly unremittingly dark and grim history. Both here at home but also abroad. Even when done with good intentions it seems to wind up causing tremendous damage. Equally the idea of just saying that you can continue to live in Horden but we're not going to be providing you with any financial support, no benefits, nada unless you move hardly feels equitable either.

Somewhere like Horden can effectively survive in the modern era because we have a welfare state even though the settlements themselves are now exist after their purpose for being created (or expanded) has gone. 100 years ago if Horden colliery had shuttered, the people living in Horden would have depopulated the village themselves because they'd have to find another way of supporting themselves. But is that really a good thing? The sort of poverty we had a 100 years ago makes poverty of today look like a life of luxury. I'm not convinced going back to that is sensible for anyone.

It happened in the late 1960s at Marsden. Mine closed, and settlement demolished.

There's a really fine line in my mind between being wholly utilitarian about these things, and allowing subsidies and/or welfare payments to maintain a settlement that can't sustain it's population. I've connections in rural Cornwall, and that balance is really difficult - people rightly want to maintain their communities and family links, but at the same time there isn't the money to support them properly. That's complicated in Cornwall by sky high property prices and the tourist economy, but the issue exists elsewhere too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 11:14 ==

What "railway settlement"? There's a pub and a holiday home and, er, that's it.

The rest of it is hunting estate which isn't reliant on the railway - there is road access, just not public road access (a bit like Altnabreac I suppose). It might kill the hostel, but then again maybe it wouldn't, it is a proper walkers' type place and they might well still visit by way of car and a walk in.

Precisely - the railway settlement was Gortan, down the line towards Rannoch. Corrour has a settlement, and while it benefitted from the railway, it wasn't dependent on it - as you say, it was also (and still is) a hunting lodge.

Places like there, or Riccarton, weren't so much villages as a civilian equivalent of an army base - which will also not tend to survive when closed. The more interesting study is of what happened to railway villages, like Woodford Halse or Melton Constable, when the railway pulled out - it was the dominant employer, possibly also owning property for workers, but in pre-existing settlements.

 

[The exile]

What "railway settlement"? There's a pub and a holiday home and, er, that's it.

The rest of it is hunting estate which isn't reliant on the railway - there is road access, just not public road access (a bit like Altnabreac I suppose). It might kill the hostel, but then again maybe it wouldn't, it is a proper walkers' type place and they might well still visit by way of car and a walk in.

Hence the inverted commas. There is no building at the station site that doesn’t owe its existence to the railway. The only difference is that the link to the railway is no longer direct so the railway wouldn’t be the decision maker.

 

[HSTEd]

Well currently I would argue that the only reason these places haven't depopulated is because the planning system has created an artificial housing shortage.

They can't leave these towns without economic raison d'etre because they have nowhere to go.

Without fish, and with modern ferry operations being as labour efficient as they are, Stranraer would probably be expected to go the way of old sarum. There isn't even really much demand for agricultural market towns either, so many settlements across Britain would wither away if not sustained by people functionally held captive by planning regulations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Precisely - the railway settlement was Gortan, down the line towards Rannoch. Corrour has a settlement, and while it benefitted from the railway, it wasn't dependent on it - as you say, it was also (and still is) a hunting lodge.

As an aside on Corrour, while it's well worth going there it doesn't actually feel that isolated when you do. If anything Cheddington feels more isolated (or in all seriousness pick one of the Conwy Valley stations with the settlement not immediately adjacent to it e.g. Dolgarrog, or Roman Bridge which doesn't really have one). There are always people around, there is the pub (quite good by the way) and there are cars, just not public roads. The feel is probably something a bit like a National Trust country estate without the house having public access, or something like that.

 

[35B]

Hence the inverted commas. There is no building at the station site that doesn’t owe its existence to the railway. The only difference is that the link to the railway is no longer direct so the railway wouldn’t be the decision maker.

From the personal testimony of someone who once worked there (and had a New Years Day emergency train to the maternity ward at Fort William in the early 60s), the link between lodge and railway is less tight.

Well currently I would argue that the only reason these places haven't depopulated is because the planning system has created an artificial housing shortage.

They can't leave these towns without economic raison d'etre because they have nowhere to go.

Without fish, and with modern ferry operations being as labour efficient as they are, Stranraer would probably be expected to go the way of old sarum. There isn't even really much demand for agricultural market towns either, so many settlements across Britain would wither away if not sustained by people functionally held captive by planning regulations.

Erm, no - there are minor issues about personal connection, family links, and simple preference to be considered too, before we get to the question of subsidies to remain and deterrents to moving. And, living in one such market town, there is rather more churn and change of purpose than you allow for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well currently I would argue that the only reason these places haven't depopulated is because the planning system has created an artificial housing shortage.

They can't leave these towns without economic raison d'etre because they have nowhere to go.

I don't think that's actually true in the way you suggest. There is a housing shortage which pushes prices up, yes, but there are options, e.g. you could sell up and rent, or switch from a large house in Stranraer to a flat nearer Glasgow.

I just did a Rightmove search on Stranraer and it seems a typical 2-3 bed terrace is about £160K. That's fairly cheap, but it's not abandoned-cheap. You would definitely find somewhere closer to employment in Scotland for that money. You could certainly find somewhere in an OKish English town with plenty of employment for that, for random example Wigan or Chorley (which is oddly cheap for its commutability to expensive Manchester).

 

[waverley47]

I think the only towns we'll see forcibly depopulated are ones like Fairbourne where the tide is forcing it

Funnily enough, there's an office in the Environment Agency, the head of which is a dear friend, with this exact purview.

From what I've been told, this isn't the only instance. They're discussing which towns will just slip into the sea along Holderness and East Anglia, as the ground underneath them crumbles.

They're discussing with towns and villages are likely to be cut off when bridges are washed away in more extreme flooding, and which ones wouldn't be worth rebuilding.

They're discussing which islands would run out of fresh water, due to drought in the summer (Lundy) or due to salt intrusion into freshwater lenses (some of the Western Isles, and the isles of Scilly).

They're discussing which towns might need to be compulsorily purchased, and replaced with reservoirs. Rivers drying up in the summer, and flooding in the winter, means we need more storage, and there's very little empty land in the UK.

They're discussing the price point of defences. How many houses are worth building a sea wall? Or how many houses can they abandon to the climate in one village? Or which villages just aren't worth the cost of protection. If somewhere like Dawlish needs an expensive, custom solution, then that is money that isn't being spent on protecting somewhere else.

There will be streets in villages all over the country where these five houses will be protected, because it's financially viable, but those five on the other side of street won't be. Or which houses do they need to buy and demolish so that they can recreate floodplain for somewhere downstream that's more economically important? Or which towns in Essex need to be bought up to create flood barriers to protect London? How far up the Ouse in Yorkshire or up the Severn do you build a flood barrier, knowing everywhere downstream is abandoned to the elements in a storm surge?

It's a brutal, brutal job and I admire my friend immensely for it, but there's absolutely no envy. It's reassuring I suppose that someone is having these conversations, however the crushing reality is that many, many places will have to be depopulated, at least in parts, as we have to adapt.

 

[HSTEd]

There is an interesting question about abandoning towns. In the aforementioned overheating housing market, the cost to society of replacing lost housing units is enormous.

It is cheap for the parts of government making the decision to order the abandonment of settlements. In fact it costs them very little at all since they can functionally do it at the stroke of a pen.

The cost to society of replacing the abandoned housing and infrastructure will be very large, but won't be the problem of the department making the decision.
If the government is not willing to order massive housing construction (and the available evidence is it is not), then I think most settlement would be worth defending on a whole-cost-to-society basis.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 12:09 ==

Erm, no - there are minor issues about personal connection, family links, and simple preference to be considered too, before we get to the question of subsidies to remain and deterrents to moving. And, living in one such market town, there is rather more churn and change of purpose than you allow for.

I also grew up in a market/industrial town that had had it's industrial base stripped away. It is a 'growth' town, but primarily in terms of the government ordering the council to have a plan to include lots of new housing units.

The town itself continues to die on its feet, but I accept that all such evidence is merely anecdotal.
My experience is that very few of my compatriots from school still live in the area.

There are many ex mill towns without mills and pit villages without pits that score very badly on deprivation indecises however.

I suggest we must decide if our focus is saving settlements from deprivation or the people in them.

 

[35B]

There is an interesting question about abandoning towns. In the aforementioned overheating housing market, the cost to society of replacing lost housing units is enormous.

It is cheap for the parts of government making the decision to order the abandonment of settlements. In fact it costs them very little at all since they can functionally do it at the stroke of a pen.

The cost to society of replacing the abandoned housing and infrastructure will be very large, but won't be the problem of the department making the decision.
If the government is not willing to order massive housing construction (and the available evidence is it is not), then I think most settlement would be worth defending on a whole-cost-to-society basis.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 12:09 ==


I also grew up in a market/industrial town that had had it's industrial base stripped away. It is a 'growth' town, but primarily in terms of the government ordering the council to have a plan to include lots of new housing units.

The town itself continues to die on its feet, but I accept that all such evidence is merely anecdotal.
My experience is that very few of my compatriots from school still live in the area.

There are many ex mill towns without mills and pit villages without pits that score very badly on deprivation indecises however.

I suggest we must decide if our focus is saving settlements from deprivation or the people in them.

Two important points. One is about the cost of change, and where it falls - bearing in mind that the direct cost of change may not fall on government, but other costs may - and may also be saved.

The other is about towns vs. people. I think there's a strong case that in some places, the balance has been too much on maintaining the settlement and too little on whether the people there are best helped by being subsidised to stay put. Hull's often been used as an example of this, where there are large pockets of deep deprivation, and it is those people who are least able to move away

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hull's often been used as an example of this, where there are large pockets of deep deprivation, and it is those people who are least able to move away

Rural settlements whose raison d'etre has gone and reasonably sized cities are rather different, though. The idea of depopulating Hull deliberately would just be a contribution to the housing crisis and is just like the Liverpool vendetta* noted above. It's an OK enough place, it just needs more jobs, which can be done easily enough for places like that by moving civil service functions in.

* Right wingers, most notably Thatcher, always had it in for Liverpool due to the strength of its trade union movement.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

A relatively modern example would be Cassiar in Canada. A town built to serve an asbestos mine. The mine closed, the town closed, the houses got bought and trucked out. The mine was opened as recently as 1952 and closed suddenly in 1992.

As for a rail link, the was the intended destination of the Dease Lake branch, commenced at great expense, laid with rails for part of its length, graded for a further length, with some substantial structures, but never completed. Branch commences at Fort St James.

There is a Wikipedia page here about the town.

Most of the contents of the town, including a few houses, were auctioned off and trucked away. Most of the remaining dwellings were bulldozed and burned to the ground.

Well currently I would argue that the only reason these places haven't depopulated is because the planning system has created an artificial housing shortage.

They can't leave these towns without economic raison d'etre because they have nowhere to go.

Without fish, and with modern ferry operations being as labour efficient as they are, Stranraer would probably be expected to go the way of old sarum. There isn't even really much demand for agricultural market towns either, so many settlements across Britain would wither away if not sustained by people functionally held captive by planning regulations.

The planning system has not (generally) created a housing shortage. Housebuilders have created a housing shortage, it is in their interest to do so as a shortage leads to higher prices at much the same build cost, kerching.

Also higher prices, supported by an over-excited / under-cautious financial services industry lending at ever increasing loan ratios and salary multiples have created an affordability problem. In some, perhaps many, parts of the country there remains a healthy supply of properties to buy. Affordability is the issue not supply.

There are numerous places where there is a measurable surplus of empty properties (for example the referred to part abandoned pit villages) where the asking price simply doesn't follow market demand/supply rules where properties should reduce to reflect the lack of demand.

Relating to this thread, relocating the population of Fairbourne to Stoke-on-Trent, nay problem, it would merely soak up a few of our 5,000 or so long-term voids!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A relatively modern example would be Cassiar in Canada. A town built to serve an asbestos mine. The mine closed, the town closed, the houses got bought and trucked out. The mine was opened as recently as 1952 and closed suddenly in 1992.

Relating to this thread, relocating the population of Fairbourne to Stoke-on-Trent, nay problem, it would merely soak up a few of our 5,000 or so long-term voids!

Much as I'd rather poke my eyes out with a rusty nail than live in Stoke (sorry, but I really don't like the place) something like that could feasibly allow the homeowners of Fairbourne to be effectively given a property for free on the "£1 streets" type model at very low cost to the taxpayer. Renters can of course just rent somewhere else of their preference, I doubt rents are specifically lower there than any other random Welsh seaside place, the values to own are just low because there's no future, they're a bit like in effect leasehold houses with a maybe 30 year lease remaining and no extension possible, so a depreciating asset rather than an appreciating one. If you want to live there for 20 years say and you have the cash up front a sensible purchase, or perhaps if you're in your 70s and want a cheap holiday home having got too old for camping, but not an investment.

A bit of a shame if you were going to inherit one I suppose, but then inheritances are never guaranteed - a £1m house in London can easily be wiped out by care costs if someone lives 20-30 years in very poor health, say.