In October 1984, a new variety of housing grants was introduced. It entailed a grant of £5000 being made available to local authority tenants hoping to buy a home in the private sector. It was known as the ‘£5000 Surrender Grant’. The policy was short-lived and was terminated in March 27th 1987. The scheme displays how an initiative, however well-intentioned and effective in some aspects, will not succeed without a full and comprehensive housing policy plan. This essay will examine what brought about this scheme, and both the positive and negative implications of it. The surrender grant was ‘widely regarded as a disastrous episode in local authority housing policy’, as said by Fahey (1999). The government provided £5000 and other incentives …show more content…
Ninety six people were interviewed, including those who had lived in the area for twelve months or less, those who had lived there for more than twelve months and had not applied for the grant, along with those from the area who had accepted the grant and moved elsewhere. Almost 70% of non-applicants stated they were dissatisfied with their location and it had not been their first choice when they applied for local authority housing. The majority of habitants felt the grant had ruined the community, as O’Malley et al. (1987) reports. It caused a breakup of friendships, organisations and community morale, making for an unsettled and unstable life in these areas. The low stability factor in these areas makes it difficult for improvements to the quality of life for the residents. The problems created are extremely difficult to overcome, even with community building efforts. Darndale, for example which was affected by the grant, is still stereo-typed and classified as a ‘bad …show more content…
Quin et al. (2005) references the 1987 Threshold report, in saying that people who accepted the grant were mainly employed and could afford a house. They tended to be the leaders of the communities and positive models for the area. Fahey (1999) remarks that when they left, this resulted in the area having high unemployment levels, causing income levels to drop and services to deteriorate. More unemployed people were placed in vacant houses, exacerbating the problem. Many houses left behind remained vacant and were vandalised, making the areas stigmatised and hard to fill. People housed in the area had an immediate motivation to change address, due to the deterioration of the area. This also left a very negative atmosphere within the community, as people were unhappy with the state of the area, and merely wanted to leave. There was also resentment among residents who applied for the grant but were not given approval. As Quin et al. (2005) says, the grant had a very concentrated and localised impact, hitting areas such as Tallaght very