Introduction
Almost as the first words of this book were being written, Theresa May’s Conservative Government published its February 2017 Housing White Paper: ‘Fixing Our Broken Housing Market’.
The Paper paints a gloomy picture of a Britain in which home ownership has become a distant dream for millions of young, hard-working people. It is right about that. Rocketing house prices have made home ownership unaffordable for first-time buyers.
Even the private rented market is fast becoming unaffordable. Without massive financial subsidy, in the form of Housing Benefit, many households on modest income would not even be able to afford a place to live. But public resources are finite. Housing Benefit cannot be an open cheque book, even though it is demand-led. Its budget has to compete with other calls on public finance.
As the White Paper points out, it is about supply and demand. There are not enough new homes being built. England needs up to 275,000 new homes each year just to keep up with population growth and to tackle years of under supply. Against this there has only been an average 160,000 new homes built each year since the 1970s.
The White Paper is also right in its assertion that local authorities have a role to play in getting new houses built and in a way which is affordable. It is local authorities which control many of the statutory gateways to new development, including our system of town and country planning. It is local authorities who are vast landowners in their own right. As paragraph 2.43 of the White Paper states:
Compulsory Purchase Law gives local authorities extensive powers to assemble land for development. Through the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Neighbourhood Planning Bill currently in Parliament we are reforming compulsory purchase to make the process clearer, fairer and faster, while retaining proper protections for landowners. Local
authorities should now think about how they can use these powers to promote development, which is particularly important in areas of high housing need.
It adds in paragraph 2.44, ‘We propose to encourage more active use of compulsory purchase powers to promote development on stalled sites for housing.’
Unfortunately, in spite of the good intentions, the White Paper has not addressed the obstacles which local authorities face in getting sufficient new social housing built out to meet their statutory responsibilities. Instead it threatens to make those obstacles worse. Take paragraph 3.29 of the White Paper:
Increasingly and across the country local authorities are using innovative models to get homes built in their area. There are a number of good examples of Local Development Corporations, local housing companies and/or joint venture models building mixed sites, which include new market housing for sale or private rent, as well as affordable housing. We welcome innovations like these, and want more local authorities to get building. To that end we will seek to address the issues that hold them back. However, we want to see tenants that local authorities place in new affordable properties offered equivalent terms to those in council housing, including a right to buy their home.
Many Government policies which seemed right in the 1980s are today inhibiting local authority new-build. It means that any local council wishing to build new affordable housing – whether alone or more commonly through a private-sector partner – must first circumvent a maze of legislative traps. Back in the 1980s the housing landscape was different.
When the modern Housing Benefit regime was first introduced in the early 1980s, there was almost no private-rented market. According to figures contained in the January 2015 Civitas Report ‘The Future of Private Renting’, in 1918 76% of households (in England and Wales) rented privately, compared to a low point of 9% in 1991. However, of that 9%, many occupiers would have been long-term sitting tenants whose rights to occupy were already protected under the 1977 Rent Act. Once that tenant died or moved out, a wise landlord might take the opportunity to sell the property with vacant possession. It would not be re-let.
Safe legal advice to anyone thinking of renting out their home was ‘don’t’. Letting was high risk. Once a residential tenant was installed, and so long as they paid their rent, they were potentially there for life. To make matters worse, whatever rent the prospective landlord and prospective tenant
might agree at the outset, the tenant could later apply to a Rent Assessment Committee or Tribunal to get it reduced. Some private landlords dreamed up innovative schemes to get around lifetime security and rent controls. These included non-exclusive possession licences, where the landlord was not technically a landlord at all and the tenant was not technically a tenant. So, the 1977 Rent Act could not apply. However, the House of Lords had no hesitation in striking down such sham arrangements in the case of Street v Mountford [1985] WLR 877, when it ruled that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the grant of exclusive possession of accommodation to someone in return for a rent constituted a tenancy to which the Rent Act applied, whatever the piece of paper might say.
The new Thatcher Government had in 1980 legislated to create a new form of Protected Shorthold Tenancy, which would give landlords the right to let residential properties for fixed terms of between one and five years and with the ability regain possession of their properties after the terms had ended. During the term of the protected shorthold, the tenant would enjoy all the rights of a Rent Act regulated tenancy. But there were strict procedures for setting it up, which included service of a ‘Section 53 Notice’ on the tenant before the tenancy agreement was signed. Getting it wrong meant that the tenancy would default to a fully protected Rent Act tenancy. Getting vacant possession at the end of the fixed term was also dependent on the landlord having served the correct statutory notice within the last three months of the fixed term. Any failure to serve such notice meant that the tenancy would carry on to its next anniversary, when the landlord would have another chance to serve the required statutory notice to bring it to an end.
The absence of a booming private rented sector coupled with an adequate stock of public sector housing meant that the housing benefit budget was manageable. The only private tenants were those existing tenants whose long-term right to occupy and rent level were already protected under the 1977 Rent Act. Anyone else would be renting from a local authority or housing association, whose rent would already be fixed at an affordable level. As the 2015 Civitas Report states on page 12:
The widening affordability gap is illustrated by the growing number of people who are coming to rely on housing benefit. In 1988/89, at about the time that rent controls were abolished and council housing building went into terminal decline, the housing benefit bill was, in today’s prices, £7.4 billion. Since then, however, the cost has more than trebled in real terms and now comes to about £24 billion. The number of claimants has risen too, by about a quarter (from just under four million to just over five million in 2013/14).
The sea change came with the Housing Act 1988 which, for the first time in a quarter of a century, allowed private sector landlords to let on new assured shorthold tenancies, on which their rents would not be controlled and where landlords could recover vacant possession when they wanted. But this would not be a problem because a revitalised rented market meant that there would always be an ample supply of alternative accommodation for those displaced tenants to move into. Housing associations could also let on the new shorthold terms, although many have chosen to confer longer security of tenure through the contractual terms of their tenancies. Like the earlier protected shortholds, there were strict statutory procedures required to set up an ‘assured shorthold’, failing which the tenancy would default to a lifetime ‘assured tenancy’. Provided these procedures were followed, the landlord could let on a fixed term of as little as six months and have the right to recover at any time thereafter on giving to the tenant not less than two months statutory notice. The Housing Act 1996 removed the specific legal formalities required to set up an assured shorthold tenancy and instead made assured shortholds the default tenancies for most short-term residential lettings.
Although originally introduced as part of Conservative Party policy to revitalise a private-rented housing market, assured shorthold tenancies survived the 1997–2010 Labour Governments without significant change and remain today the predominant mechanism for short- to medium-term lettings of residential accommodation. But local authorities have always operated within a different market.
Until the Housing Act 1980, local authority housing tenants had no statutory security of tenure. Council lettings were outside the scope of the 1977 Rent Act. It meant that the only protections which council tenants had were through common law principles of public law which had developed since the 1947 landmark Court of Appeal judgment in Associated Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.
The essence of Wednesbury was that any decision by a public authority could be struck down by the courts if in reaching its decision the public body:
• failed to have due regard to relevant considerations;
• had taken into account irrelevant considerations; or
• acted in a way which was so unreasonable that a reasonable public body –which had been properly advised – could not have acted in the same way.
It was the Housing Act 1980 which for the first time conferred statutory lifetime security of tenure on local authority tenants. But that security of tenure was still looser than that imposed by the 1977 Rent Act on private sector lettings, as there were no statutory rent controls. Provided tenants kept to the
terms of their tenancies, they could now occupy their accommodation for life and pass on their tenancies to members of their families resident with them at their deaths. But it was the Housing Act 1980 which also introduced one other landmark reform: statutory right to buy.
Even under the Labour Government, which was in office before the May 1979 General Election took Margaret Thatcher to power, some councils were selling housing stock to their tenants at discounted prices. The Housing Act 1957 coupled with subsequent ministerial consents allowed them to do this. But it was something over which each council had control. There was no obligation to sell and it was for each local authority to determine the terms of sale. It meant there were some councils which offered generous sale terms to their tenants – whilst other councils refused to sell at all. To off-set existing council housing stock which was being sold, there was still at this time new stock being built. What the Housing Act 1980 did was to place all local authorities under the same obligation to sell existing housing stock to tenants who qualified and also to regulate the terms of each sale. It was part of the Government’s commitment to wider home ownership. Unfortunately, the introduction of right-to-buy coincided with another 1980 Government policy: Michael Heseltine’s moratorium on the building of new local authority housing stock.
The ‘right’ was available to ‘secure’ tenants who had occupied for a minimum qualifying period and discounts could be up to 60% depending on how long the tenant had previously been in occupation under their tenancy. The terms of sale meant that right-to-buy purchasers would have to repay the whole or part of their statutory discount if they resold within the first few years of their purchase. After the expiry of that short repayment period there was no restriction on when and to whom that property could be re-sold. The other feature of right-to-buy was that since 1st April 1990 financial regulations have prevented councils from reinvesting sale receipts in constructing new social housing. Section 59 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 required three quarters of that income to be set aside to pay off existing debt. That legislation is now contained within regulation 23 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) Regulations 2003 and later amendments.
Like assured shorthold tenancies, statutory right-to-buy survived the incoming Blair/Brown Governments of 1997–2010 although the level of discount was scaled back whilst the terms of sale were made marginally more onerous. As a result, the actual number of right-to-buy sales during that period dropped to a trickle.
But right-to-buy enjoyed a resurgence with the incoming Coalition Government of 2010, when qualifying and repayment periods were reduced and discounts increased. The Government also announced a commitment
to extend generous right-to-buy discounts to housing association tenants, who hitherto had only enjoyed a more modest ‘right to acquire’, which had been introduced by the Housing Act 1996 and for which there was little take up. The only difference between that and Thatcher’s right-to-buy was Cameron’s assurance that homes sold under the new right-to-buy would be replaced by new social housing on a one-for-one basis. The problem with generous right-to-buy policies is that they act as a disincentive to local authorities trying to address housing need by developing new council housing stock for rent. What would be the point?
Save for a few statutory exceptions, any new housing stock which a council builds to meet long-term housing need and then lets out directly to its own tenants is immediately converted by the Housing Act 1985 into a secure tenancy carrying with it a statutory right-to-buy. After a three-year qualifying period, tenants can begin exercising their right-to-buy at increasing levels of discount as time elapses. And there is no guarantee that those homes sold under right-to-buy will remain forever in owner occupation. Once a home has been sold to a sitting tenant, there is in most cases nothing to stop that home being re-sold immediately by that former tenant to a private buyto-let landlord. Yes – there may be some discount to repay. But there is little legally to prevent that sale taking place.
Current right-to-buy terms require an ex-tenant to offer to sell their home back to the council, at full market value, before selling on to a third party during the first ten years of purchase. But how many councils take up that offer after they had already paid away the bulk of their original capital receipt under set-aside? The end result is that as, over time, the new social housing is sold off, councils are eventually put in the position of having to rent back properties on their own estates in order to meet their statutory obligations. Paragraph 2.13 of the Greater London Assembly October 2013 Housing Committee Paper, ‘Right to Build. What’s Stopping Councils From Building More Housing’ highlights the problem:
Perhaps the most egregious consequence of Right-to-Buy and abuse of the system has been the recycling of former council homes into the private rental sector. Hard evidence is difficult to come by but Mayor Sir Steve Bullock, for London Councils, suggested that conclusions drawn from research undertaken in Scotland, demonstrating that this had happened to a large proportion of ex-council stock, were also likely to apply in London. This can result in the absurd situation of councils having to rent back their old stock from new private landlords at much higher rents in order to fulfil their statutory duties. The increased costs are usually met by the benefits system.
It is disappointing that the Housing White Paper has not taken the opportunity to address this disincentive and give councils and other registered providers the confidence they need to build out new social housing safe in the knowledge that those homes will be kept permanently available to meet housing need and bring down the cost of renting. Instead the White Paper does the opposite. Instead of exempting social housing new-build from right-to-buy, the White Paper promises to extend it to all social tenants, irrespective of whether they rent from a local authority or a registered provider.
Since publication of the Housing White Paper and as a result of the intervening 8th June 2017 General Election, the current Conservative Administration has lost its overall Parliamentary majority but remains in power as a minority government. Accordingly, the Queen’s Speech presented to Parliament on 21st June 2017 was much stripped down from what it might otherwise have been if Theresa May had won her expected landslide. On housing, all the that the Queen had to say was: ‘Proposals will be brought forward to ban unfair tenant fees, promote fairness and transparency in the housing market and help ensure more homes are built.’ There was no mention in that speech of right-to-buy or its extension to other social housing tenures. The May Government’s commitment to extending right-to-buy in England is also out of step with what is currently happening in Scotland and Wales. Right-to-buy ended for all council and housing association tenants in Scotland on 31st July 2016. As this chapter is being written, the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights Bill is passing though Welsh National Assembly which, after a 12-month breathing space, will abolish right-to-buy across Wales. Existing discounts are in the meantime stripped back to £8,000 and one of the aims of the Welsh legislation is to:
Encourage social landlords to build or acquire new homes for rent, as the right-to-buy, preserved right-to-buy and right-to-acquire will not be exercisable by tenants who move into new social housing more than two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, subject to certain exceptions.
In the meantime, the continued existence of right-to-buy means that English councils cannot build and rent out new social housing directly. They need to work with a private sector partner or with some other intermediary organisation, such as a housing association or a special purpose company. It is then that intermediary organisation which will manage the newly built housing stock and let it out to persons nominated as being in housing need. Because that intermediary is not a local authority it will be outside the Housing Act
1985 and able to let on assured shorthold tenancies in the same way as any other private landlord.
Just one warning. Although many councils are regenerating in this way, the whole process is still legally untested. Can a local authority really exempt itself from tenant security and right-to-buy simply by setting up its own company to manage its housing stock? And what if this (or a future) Government can still muster enough Parliamentary votes to extend rightto-buy to a council’s housing association partner? The 2015 Civitas Report advocates a return to statutory rent controls as a means of making housing affordable. We beg to disagree.
The current housing crisis is entirely the result of a distorted housing market in which the housing benefit system competes with private renters and in which first-time buyers are priced out by the buy-to-renters. It follows that the only sustainable solution is one which enables councils and other voluntary providers to meet affordable housing needs from within their own stock and without recourse to the private rented market. That market will remain to meet the demands of private renters. But it will no longer be the state-subsidised cash-cow which it is today.
This book looks at how a typical housing regeneration project might be structured to ensure that the accommodation provided is kept permanently available to meet long-term housing need. It is written for councillors, chief officers, prospective development partners and any property professional or student who may be coming to a housing regeneration project for the first time. It is intended to provide a route map pointing the way to the more detailed research, analysis and advice which may be required to work up a regeneration project.
The route map
There may be several reasons why a local authority may wish to carry out a housing regeneration. In many cases it will be a second or third generation project. An example is Camden Council’s current third generation redevelopment of its Agar Grove Estate, to which Camden’s Cabinet gave the go-ahead in December 2013 and which got planning permission five months later.
The original Agar Grove Estate got its name from William Agar of Elm Lodge who, in the early 1800s, fought against the cutting of the Regent’s Canal through his property. Following his death in 1838 his widow began granting building leases on the estate, which became known as Agar Town. But the residents of that settlement were later displaced with the building of the Midland Railway’s St Pancras Station, with its associated tracks and goods yard. In the 1960s Camden Council carried out a redevelopment to provide 249 new homes and comprising a series of low/medium-rise blocks and an 18-storey tower block, which became known as Lulworth House. But by the date of the 2013 Cabinet decision it had become apparent that this 1960s development had also come to the end of its useful life. The problems were not social but physical. In paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the statement of reasons to support a compulsory purchase order, the council explains:
3.3 The Estate is home to a stable and cohesive community including many householders who have lived there for a number of years and are established in the area. However, despite being a popular place to live, the existing stock suffers from a number of problems ranging from physical defects to the size, type and quality of the accommodation relative to modern housing needs. Furthermore, the existing configuration of the Estate represents an inefficient use of land given its accessible and sustainable location. All 249 homes on the Estate have very significant investment needs.
3.4 The Estate currently comprises a series of free-standing blocks surrounded by areas of open space which were laid out in response to
solar orientation but do not measure well against today’s principles of good urban design and place-making. As a result the Estate comprises a series of ‘objects in space’ with a lack of definition between buildings and spaces; poor resolution of fronts and backs; poor legibility with expanses of green space with no clear programme of use; and an urban form which is detached from the wider area.
The current redevelopment comprises the demolition of all the low-rise buildings on the estate, apart from L & Q housing association blocks and the Agar Children’s Centre. Enough new Camden Council homes will then be built for all existing tenants who wish to continue living at Agar Grove. Some of the new-build flats and refurbished flats in Lulworth will be sold outright or on shared ownership to cross-subsidise the rest of the redevelopment. The regeneration also includes communal gardens and play spaces.
A larger scheme is Hackney Council’s rolling eight-year multi-site regeneration programme running from July 2011 to 2019 and which is forecast to deliver 2,485 new-build homes of which 1,236 will be affordable (comprising 717 homes for social rent and 519 homes for shared ownership). In addition, 195 social rented homes will be refurbished to a 30-year life standard and 80 leasehold homes will be externally refurbished. The scheme also has to cater for the additional demand for education, leisure, public realm, energy use, traffic and public transport, which will be assessed through the town planning process and addressed through planning obligations alongside on-site provision of facilities such as amenity space, play facilities and measures to reduce carbon footprint.
In September 2009 Hackney achieved Housing Investment Partner Status with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) entitling it to bid for an allocation of Social Housing Grant (SHG): for which it was allocated £10 million to build 115 homes for social rent under Round 1 of the bidding and a further £6.26 million to build 87 social rent homes under Round 2. Construction of those homes is now complete and occupied at Bridport (Colville Estate), Ottaway Court (now Dunnock Mews), Rendlesham House (now Goldcrest Mews); Alexandra National House; Brooklime House and Chervil House. Hackney then secured a further £4.26 million grant funding under the National Affordable Homes Programme 2011–2015, enabling the delivery of a further 93 social rent homes and 38 for shared ownership. However, the intention is that over the longer-term Hackney’s regeneration programme will be completely self-funding and deliver a financial return to the council, which will be achieved through:
• residual land value created through the sale of units constructed for outright private sale;
• receipt of initial equity tranche sales and the subsequent rental stream from shared ownership homes;
• ring-fencing rental receipts at target rents from the new social affordable units; and
• mitigating right-to-buy repurchase costs through the provision of equity-swap arrangements.
But not all regeneration involves the replacement of post-war tower blocks. Perhaps a piece of council-owned land has become surplus to requirements, as council services and their operational requirements contract, and has become ripe for redevelopment. Perhaps there is a prospect of central government funding becoming available if development deadlines can be met. Often it is a combination of all of them.
Having identified a prospective housing regeneration project, the first formal step may be to present a report to the appropriate Cabinet or councillor committee seeking political support for the principle of regeneration and the allocation of a budget to pay professional fees to work up a detailed and costed scheme for final approval. That report may also outline possible options and seek authorisation for a tender exercise to find a potential development partner to carry out the construction and for a registered provider to manage the affordable housing once it has been constructed. That initial Cabinet or committee approval and budget will then enable the engagement of property professionals to work up a scheme and begin the process of tendering for a development partner.
Surveyors will be appointed to check that the land is physically capable of redevelopment and to provide valuations. Lawyers will check the titles to the land and its ownership and identify any third-party rights or interests which might inhibit the carrying out of development or which need to be re-acquired. In the case of the Agar Grove regeneration, this would include Camden Council’s need to repurchase homes previously sold under rightto-buy as well as providing suitable alternative accommodation for existing council tenants who are still in occupation. Where such rights or interests are identified, it is those same lawyers who will need to advise on how those development constraints can be overcome.
The next stage is to put in hand a transparent procurement process to identify a potential development partner. That process will need to be compliant with European Rules and the council’s own contract standing orders. Prospective development partners will be invited to bid against a development specification. Annexed to that specification may be drafts of any development agreement or other documentation which the successful appointee will be expected to sign.
However, before that appointment can actually take place, a second report will need to go back to Cabinet or the appropriate committee with
a fully costed and worked-up scheme and a report on the bids received with a detailed recommendation as to which development partner should be appointed to implement the project.
Following that second resolution, the council will notify the prospective development partner that their bid has been accepted. From notification of that appointment, the council and the development partner will be in a formal contractual relationship, even if the development agreement itself has not yet been signed.
Before development can actually start, there are other preliminary hurdles which must first be overcome. Planning permission will first need to be applied for and obtained. If there are multiple third-party interests to be acquired, it may be appropriate to put a compulsory purchase order in place. There may also be roads and footpaths crossing the site which need to be stopped up to enable development to take place.
Only when all of these preliminary issues have been surmounted can the development-partner be allowed on site in accordance with the terms of the development agreement to commence and complete the redevelopment. On completion of the redevelopment, ownership of the appropriate parts of the site will be transferred by the local authority to the development partner or, as the case may be, the registered housing provider. The affordable housing will then be let by the housing association on assured shortholds or sold on shared ownerships to persons nominated by the local authority as being in housing need. The allocation criteria will be set out in a nomination agreement signed between the local authority and the registered provider.
Key to the success of any regeneration project is the support of the people whose lives it will directly affect. No programme of regeneration can succeed in the face of an entrenched and united campaign of opposition. It is why a programme of planned human engagement is just as important to a regeneration project as compliance with legal formalities. Someone whose home is being compulsory purchased will need to be convinced that there will be a better home waiting for them once construction is complete, that their community will not be broken up and that they will be no worse off financially. It means that councils embarking on a regeneration project must be able to offer a range of options to those people who will potentially be displaced, including the possibility of one-for-one swaps as an alternative to a cash payment.
It is a lucky project which goes entirely to plan. Most do not. It is why a project team must anticipate everything which could possibly go wrong, list them in a ‘risk register’ and put in place contingencies. That risk register will then need to be regularly updated as the project progresses. Some risks will fade as project milestones are reached, whilst other – previously
unforeseen risks – may be added to the register. Typical risks for a regeneration project might include:
• insufficient interest amongst potential development partners;
• tenders for the construction work are higher than anticipated;
• planning permission is refused, delayed, or granted on terms so onerous that they undermine the financial viability of the project;
• difficulty in negotiating terms for the rationalisation of land interests required for site assembly;
• expected grant-funding required for the project is not forthcoming – or is less than expected or offered on more onerous terms;
• delay in finalising terms between the council and its development partner;
• unexpected physical constraints which add to the construction cost –such as the discovery of an underground cellar;
• uncertainties of continued member support for the project, particular in the face of an organised campaign of opposition by those residents most affected;
• a collapse in the housing market, which reduces the overall profitability of any project which is being cross-subsidised by the development of homes for private sale.
The 14th June 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy also provides a stark reminder that risk does not end on practical completion – or when the last privatesale home is sold. It continues. At the time of writing, a public inquiry has been announced but has yet to take place into why more than 80 people lost their lives as a result of a flash-fire which consumed almost the whole of the 24-storey 67.30 metre high building and which was caused (it is believed) by flammable cladding installed during a 2012 £10 million refurbishment project designed to improve insulation and make the building warmer in winter and cooler in summer. Building services engineers, Max Fordham’s, 17th August 2012 Sustainability and Energy Statement explained the purpose of the refurbishment: ‘Poor insulation levels and air tightness on both the walls and windows at Grenfell Tower result in excessive heat loss during the winter months and addressing this issue is the primary driver behind the refurbishment.’ It added, ‘The chosen strategy is to wrap the building in a thick layer of insulation and then overclad with a rain screen to protect the insulation from the weather and from physical damage.’
The situation was not helped by a stay-put fire policy. A May 2016 Grenfell Tower Regeneration Newsletter advised residents:
The smoke detection systems have been upgraded and extended. The Fire Brigade has asked us to reinforce the message that, if there is a fire
which is not inside your own home, you are generally safest to stay put in your home to begin with, the Fire Brigade will arrive very quickly if a fire is reported. The only reason you should leave your home is if the fire is inside your home.
It must be expected that the inquiry, when it happens, will consider not only the direct causes of the fire but also the extent to which that fire risk was – or should have been – foreseeable to those responsible for its installation. In that respect it is noteworthy that similar insulation materials were used in many other tower blocks across the UK and Europe. Each of those tower blocks will require extensive and urgent works to remove existing cladding and substitute a fire-resistant alternative. Because of the likely extent of those works there are also the associated logistical issues as regards the temporary rehousing of residents living in the blocks. An added complication is that many of the flats in those blocks will have already been sold under right-to-buy.
What is certain is that the conclusions of the public inquiry will have implications for all housing regeneration projects. A regeneration project team cannot be held responsible for everything which happens after a project has been delivered. Even if the project was problem-free at the point of delivery, subsequent lack of maintenance could risk health and safety. However, it is the job of a regeneration team to deliver a project which is free from inherent risk or defect, according to the state of scientific knowledge at the date the project is delivered.
There will be many variants on this model, but the fundamental routemap will always be the same. The good news is there is so much information about current regeneration projects which is freely available to download. Each one is a textbook providing ideas and knowhow for the next generation of projects. Examples of project documentation which is already in the public domain include: Cabinet reports and resolutions; compulsory purchase orders; statements of reasons; demolition notices; community engagement; planning reports and decisions: even complete development agreements.
Information gathering
If the starting point for any housing regeneration project is the idea, the next stage is to test the feasibility of that thought. This is initially a desktop information-gathering exercise. It is about trying to find out who owns what. Even if a local authority is redeveloping its own housing estate, it is unlikely that the council will own everything.
Some units may have previously been sold under right-to-buy. So, the council will need to buy them back. There may be electricity substations and other utility-owned services within the regeneration site. There may also be roads, public footpaths and public amenity areas. This particular desktop exercise would normally comprise:
• a review of Land Registry records;
• a review of such physical documentation as exists;
• standard conveyancing searches.
The assessment would need to be carried out by an experienced conveyancer with electronic access to Land Registry records. And all that conveyancer would need to begin that exercise is a red-line plan showing the location of the proposed regeneration site in relation to surrounding streets and landmarks. Using that red-line plan, the conveyancer will be able to search Land Registry records and provide a detailed report on the different ownerships which make up the regeneration site. As well as identifying ownerships, the ‘title report’ will also detail and highlight known documented third-party interests which might obstruct – or make more difficult or expensive – the process of carrying out a redevelopment. Those third-party interests might include contractual restrictions on the way land can be developed or used, the existence of private rights of way, or the rights of adjoining owners to use pipes, wires or other utility services running through the land.
The process of collecting title information is made easier by the process of land registration which exists in the UK and which means that most
title information is available for instant download. Modern land registration began with the Land Registration Act 1862. But the scheme, as launched, was entirely voluntary and little used. Inner London became the first area of compulsory land registration in 1899. Compulsory registration means that every time unregistered land is sold, the purchaser is placed under an obligation to apply for first registration of their title. Until that registration takes place, title does not fully transfer to the new purchaser. Compulsory registration is therefore a piecemeal process. Unless and until a transaction takes place to trigger first registration, the land remains unregistered.
By contrast, title to unregistered land is evidenced by an examination of the physical title deeds in a system which has barely changed since medieval times. As the documentation is ‘unregistered’, the information contained within it is only accessible to the person or organisation holding the deeds.
Over the course of a century, compulsory land registration extended on a district-by-district basis until by December 1990 compulsory registration had extended across the whole of England and Wales. Before 1990 registered title information was private, which meant that it was only accessible by the registered land owner and anyone else whom they authorised to access the register. Such restricted access was deliberate to give registered land owners the same privacy as that enjoyed by unregistered landowners. But that changed when all registered titles were opened up to public access. It is that public access which now makes it possible to obtain documented title information quickly and with certainty. However, nearly 30 years after compulsory registration was rolled out across the remainder of the UK, approximately 18% of land still remains unregistered. There may be several reasons for this:
• The land belongs to institutional landowners such as local authorities, central government departments, religious institutions or charities. With no change in ownership – the requirement to register title would not have arisen.
• It comprises the subsoil of ancient highway, in which there has never been any documented ownership. Under conveyancing law, title to such subsoil is presumed to belong to the owners of properties fronting the highway, up to the median and subject to the right of the public to travel across the surface.
There are also some types of transaction which are exempt from the requirement to register because of their temporary nature. The clearest example of this are leases for terms not exceeding seven years, or with less than seven years unexpired on the date of any assignment. Such leases take effect as ‘overriding interests’, which mean that they bind the title even though they
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
„Wat nu gedaan?
„Een bitje gewacht! Maar ’t en beterde niet met Mijnheer Pastor, en de menschen wierden ongeduldig!
„De pastor kreeg een gedacht Koster! riep hij, ’k en kan [75]ik volstrekt in de kerke niet gaan, ge zult gij moeten de kruiskes geven
„De koster, die zijnen pastor gewend was, verstond dat nog al wel
„Zegt de pastor toen:
„Ge weet wat ge moet zeggen, binst dat ge de kruiskes geeft: Memento, homo! quia pulvis es et in pulverum reverteris (Herinner, mensch! dat gij stof zijt en in stof zult wederkeeren).
„Wat belieft er u? zei de koster.
„De pastor herhaalde ’t latijn, maar de koster en verstond het nog niet.
„Na drie of vier keeren wierd de pastor ongeduldig:
„Ge zijt ezel geboren, schreeuwde de pastor, en ge zult ezel sterven!
„Ja, Mijnheer Pastor, zei de koster, en hij trok de kerke binnen, peinzende in zijn eigen dat ze toch aardige dingen zeggen aan de menschen in ’t latijn
„En hij begon maar kruiskes te geven en te herhalen dat hij schuimde:
„Ge zijt ezel geboren, en ge zult ezel sterven!
„De menschen keken wat aardig en dat wierd beklapt en besproken als zij buiten de kerke kwamen
„En de historie en bleef in de prochie niet; ze wierd wijd en breed verspreid in ’t omliggende en verder, en zoo kwam het dat de lieden van Cuerne den name van ezels kregen.
„Onverdiend!”
Hier voren (op bladzijde 70) heb ik reeds met een enkel woord vermeld de verzen van eenen Vlaming uit den ouden tijd, waarin al de spotnamen van Vlaamsche steden en dorpen zijn opgenoemd. Op dat hoogst merkwaardige stuk wil ik hier nader terug komen.
In het midden der zestiende eeuw leefde te Brugge een procureur, namens E D , Lymans zone; die „Factor” was van de rederijkerskamer „De drie Sanctinnen” aldaar. Deze man bracht de Vlaamsche spotnamen in rijm te zamen, en smeedde daar lange verzen van, die hij den naam gaf van Den langhen Adieu (het lange Vaarwel). E D stelt [76]het voor alsof hij allen Vlamingen, de inwoners van allerlei Vlaamsche steden en dorpen, die hij allen afzonderlijk bij hunne spotnamen noemt, vaarwel zegt, eer hij sterven gaat. Immers zóó moet men den telkens herhaalden slotregel der verzen verstaan: „Adieu, eer ick reyse naer Adams moer.” Adam, de eerste mensch, was uit de aarde voortgekomen; „Ende de H E E R E Godt hadde den mensche geformeert uyt het stof der aerden”, zoo lezen we in den Bijbel. Dus, in overdrachtelijken zin genomen, was de aarde de moeder van Adam. Zoo iemand gestorven is, wordt zijn doode lichaam in de aarde begraven. Men kan hiervan zeggen: hij reist naar (of in) de aarde; met andere woorden: hij reist maar de moeder van Adam, naar „Adams moer.”
De bedoelde verzen nu luiden als volgt:
Den langhen Adieu Niet oudgestich
In tjaer ghemaect nieu 1500 ende tzestich.
Adieu, P o o r t e r s van Brugge, adieu H e e r e n van Ghendt, Adieu, K i n d r e n van Ipre, wijdt verre bekent,
Adieu, D a r y n c b a r n e r s van den Vryen mede,
Adieu, S c h o t t e r s van Douay, ende daer omtrent,
Adieu, S p e e r e b r e k e r s der Rysselsche stede,
N o t e c r a e c k e r s van Orchies, naer doude zede,
L e d i c h g h a n g h e r s van Oudenaerde ghepresen.
Adieu insghelijcx, oock zoo ick dandere dede,
P a s t e y e t e r s van Curtrijcke mits desen;
Adieu, C u p e r s van Damme: adieu, moet wesen,
W i t v o e t e n van Aelst, B e e n h a u w e r s van Male,
H u d e v e t t e r s van Gheerdsberghe hooghe geresen,
Vo o r v e c h t e r s van Cassele int speciale,
Va c h t p l u c k e r s van Poperynghe tprincipale:
S l a e p e r s van Vuerne, hebt oock huwen toer.
R a e p e t e r s van Waes, elck end int generale,
Adieu, eer ick reyse naer Adams moer.
Adieu, van Dermonde M a c k e l e t e r s daer,
P e l s n a e y e r s van Nieneven openbaar,
D r y n c k e r s van Winnoxberghe, Z o u t z i e d e r s van Biervliedt,
R o c h e t e r s van Muenickeree der naer.
Adieu, M o s t a e r t e t e r s die men t’ Oosthende ziet,
B u e t e r e t e r s van Dixmude en vergheet ick niet; Adieu, metten C o n ij n e t e r s van Dunkercke goet; [77]
Adieu, D r a p e n i e r s van Comene, mijn jonste biedt;
Adieu, oock an de Vu l d e r s van Caprijcke vroedt,
En den S c h i p g a e r n e m a e c k e r s van Oudenburgh, tmoet Oock adieu gheseyt sijn, ken cans my bedwynghen, C a b e l j a u e t e r s van Nieupoort, zijt oock ghegroet!
S a e y w e v e r s van Hondscote, Ghistelsche
H o v e l y n g h e n ,
D r o o g h a e r t s van Werveke int ommerynghen,
C a e r d e m a e c k e r s van Deynse op heurlieder vloer;
Ghy, S a u d e n i e r s van Grevelynghe, laet hu niet
besprynghen
Adieu, eer ick reyse naar Adams moer.
Adieu oock, G r o o t s p r e k e r s van Thorout, ghy
L u e g h e n a e r s van Ardenburch, den W i l t j a g h e r s by
Van Maldeghem, C a n d e e l e t e r s van Meenen voort,
K e t e l b o e t e r s van Middelburch; adieu van my
C r u d e n i e r s van Oostburch; insghelijcx adieu (hoort!)
L ij n w a d i e r s van Thielt, twelck menich oorboort;
Oock mede R o o t b i e r d r y n c k e r s van Haerlebeke:
Ghy P e p e r l o o c k e t e r s van Eecloo verstoort;
K e e r m e s h o u d e r s van Ruusselare meniche weke,
C a p p o e n e t e r s van Meessene, waert nood ’tbleke
Met menich smetsere ende goet gheselle:
An de W y n z u p e r s van Hulst ick adieu spreke,
S n o u c k e t e r s van Acxele, C a e s e m a e c k e r s van Belle,
De Te g h e l b a c k e r s van Stekene oock mede telle;
R o o m e t e r s van Moerbeke, ghy sonder poer,
Ende Wa e r m o e s e t e r s van Coolkercke snelle, Adieu, eer ick reyse naer Adams moer.
Adieu, H o p p e w i n d e r s van Okeghem sterck,
Adieu, O v e r m o e d i g h e van Ronsse int werck,
P a p e t e r s van Denterghem, daer in onverzaet,
G a n s s e d r ij v e r s van Laerne, scherp int bemerck;
Te Zele daer vyndt men de V l a s b o o t e r s , jaet;
Adieu, S t i e r m a n s van Wendune, elck met zijn maet.
Ende ghy, M u s s e l e t e r s van Bouchoute reyn,
Vi s s c h e r s van Blanckeberghe oock adieu ontfaet;
Adieu, P u t o o r e t e r s van Waestene int pleyn,
Adieu, D i e n a e r s van Sint Anna ter Mude certeyn,
Ve r z e y l d e r s van Heyst ten Zeeusschen gronde.
C o k e r m a e c k e r s van Ruurle, van V l a e t e r s tgreyn; Die van Sint Jans Steene oock adieu tallen stonde, C o m p o o s t e t e r s van Loo, T h o o l n a e r s van Reppelmonde,
Adieu, Eillynghen tsaemen met den Ackerboer, Adieu, dus namelicke Vlaandren int ronde, Adieu, eer ick reyse naer Adams moer. [78]
Adieu, voorts noch, ende wederom oorlof, adieu, Al dat oud was, en zichtens14 gheworden nieu!
Ook al deze oude Vlaamsche spotnamen vertoonen weêr ten duidelijksten de bijzondere kenmerken van zulke Nederlandsche namen in ’t algemeen. Ook dezen zijn grootendeels meer bijnamen in schertsenden zin, dan smaad- of hoonnamen en scheldnamen van krenkenden aard. Zoo treffen we hier weêr de namen aan die ontleend zijn aan allerlei nering en bedrijf in ’t bijzonder eigen aan deze of gene plaats; b.v. H u d e v e t t e r s van Geeraartsberge en de P e l s n a a i e r s van Ninove, de S a e y w e v e r s van Hondschoten en de C r u d e n i e r s van Oostburg, de K a a s m a k e r s van Belle en de S t u u r l i e d e n van Wenduine.
Verder ook de namen ontleend aan de eene of andere spijze of lekkernij, die hier of daar bijzonder gaarne of bijzonder menigvuldig door de lieden werd gegeten; b.v. de P a s t e i - e t e r s van Kortrijk en de R a a p - e t e r s van Waas, de R o g - e t e r s van Munnikereede en de K o n ij n - e t e r s van Duinkerke, de K a b e l j a u w - e t e r s van Nieuwpoort en de S n o e k - e t e r s van Aksel. Als rechtstreeksche spotnamen merken we op de L e d i g g a n g e r s van Oudenaarden, de W i t v o e t e n van Aalst, de Vo o r v e c h t e r s van Kassel en de S l a p e r s van Veurne; de G r o o t s p r e k e r s van Thorhout en de K e r m i s h o u d e r s van Rousselare. Onder deze laatste soort van namen zijn er zeker velen,
die aan het een of ander geschiedkundig voorval hunnen oorsprong te danken hebben.
Toen deze verzen berijmd werden was Vlaanderen nog in zijn geheel, nog één en onverdeeld. Sedert is de westelijkste gouw van Vlaanderen bij Frankrijk gevoegd, en de noordelijkste bij NoordNederland. Maar E D noemt, zeer te recht zoo wel de spotnamen op van de inwoners van Biervliet, Aardenburg, Oostburg, Hulst, Aksel, Sint-Anna-ter-Muiden en Sint-Jans-Steen (allen thans tot Noord-Nederland behoorende—Zeeuwsch Vlaanderen), als die van Douay, Rijssel, Orchies, Kassei, SintWinoks-Bergen, Duinkerke, Hondschoten, Grevelingen, Belle, tegenwoordig deel uitmakende van Frankrijk—Fransch-Vlaanderen.
Ja, in één versregel vinden we de S n o e k e t e r s van [79]Aksel vermeld naast de K a a s m a k e r s van Belle; die van Aksel zoo wel als die van Belle zijn oorspronkelijk goede Vlamingen, maar thans, en reeds sedert twee of drie eeuwen als Noord-Nederlanders en als Franschen geheel van elkanderen vervreemd.
Sommigen van deze oude namen leven nog heden in den mond des volks. De H e e r e n van Gent, de K i n d e r e n van Yperen, de P a s t e i - e t e r s van Kortrijk, de M a k e l - e t e r s van Dendermonde, de W i t v o e t e n van Aalst, en anderen zijn nog heden ten dage zoo goed bekend als tijdens E D . Daarentegen zijn de rijke en machtige P o o r t e r s van Brugge uit de zestiende eeuw in onze negentiende eeuw tot Z o t t e n vernederd, zijn de oude L e d i g g a n g e r s van Oudenaarde thans B o o n e n k n o o p e r s , de H u i d e v e t t e r s van Geeraartsbergen thans B e r g k r u i p e r s , de K a n d e e l e t e r s van Meenen thans
Ta a r t e b a k k e r s , de R o o m e t e r s van Moerbeke thans
S m e e r k o e k e t e r s (de hedendaagsche lieden van Meenen en van Moerbeke zijn toch liefhebbers van lekkernij gebleven, zoo als hunne oud-eeuwsche voorvaders reeds waren); de
Va c h t p l u k k e r s van Poperinge heeten thans K e i k o p p e n , de O v e r m o e d i g e n van Ronse zijn tot Z o t t e n ,
V l i e g e n v a n g e r s en S l e k k e n t r e k k e r s geworden, en de zestiende-eeuwsche B u e t e r - e t e r s van Diksmude thans, min hoffelijk, tot B o t e r - k o p p e n .
Uit een taalkundig oogpunt zijn eenigen van deze namen zeer merkwaardig; b.v. de D a r y n c b a r n e r s van ’t Land van den Vrijen van Brugge (eene gouw in ’t Noorden van West-Vlaanderen), die in ’t hedendaagsche Hollandsche Nederduitsch Tu r f b r a n d e r s zouden moeten genoemd worden. Darync, Darink, Daring, hedendaags in West-Vlaanderen als dèring of derring uitgesproken, is de oorspronkelijke vorm van ons hedendaagsch NoordNederlandsche woord derrie.—Verder de H u d e v e t t e r s (Lederbereiders) van Geeraartsbergen, de D r o o g h a e r t s (Droogscheerders) van Werveke, de T h o o l n a e r s (Tollenaars of, zoo als de verbasterde Hollanders zeggen, „Douanen”) van Rupelmonde, enz.
Merkwaardig is het ook dat E D in zijne verzen almede de „R o c h - e t e r s van Muenickeree” noemt. Muenickeree, [80]Munnikeree (Monnikereede in hedendaagschen taalvorm) was in de middeleeuwen een bloeiend stedeke aan het Zwin, tusschen Sluis, Damme en Brugge in Vlaanderland. In de zestiende eeuw verviel het plaatsje, in vervolg van tijd verviel het al meer en meer, eindelijk ook geheel en al, en in deze negentiende eeuw verdween het geheel van den aardbodem, om ter nauwer nood de heugenis van zijn bestaan achter te laten. Door het verloopen, het verslijken en verzanden, en door het inpolderen van den zeearm het Zwin is zelfs de plaats waar Munnikereede lag niet meer nauwkeurig aan te wijzen. Maar al is het stadje te niet gegaan, er zijn toch nog Munnikereeders over gebleven, lieden wier voorouders te Munnikereede woonden, lieden die dus van daar oorspronkelijk
herkomstig zijn. Een man uit Munnikereede (misschien ook wel een geheel gezin) heeft oudtijds, om de eene of andere reden, zijne woonplaats verlaten, en zich in Holland gevestigd, evenals in de zestiende eeuw zoo vele andere Vlamingen met hem. Die man noemde zich in zijne nieuwe woonplaats, ter onderscheiding van anderen, met den als voor de hand liggenden toenaam „Van Muenickeree” of „Van Munnikeree” of „Van Munnikreede” (de spelling van den naam doet er niet toe). En eene maagschap van dien naam, te weten: „v a n M u n n e k r e d e ”, ’s mans nakomelingschap, bestaat nog heden, en komt of kwam nog in de laatste helft dezer eeuw voor te Delft, Rotterdam, Haarlem, Heemskerk. De geslachtsnaam heeft dus in dit geval den plaatsnaam, de oudingezetene van Munnikereede heeft, in zijne nakomelingen, het stedeke zelf overleefd. En zelfs de spotnaam waarmede de oude Munnikereeders in de middeleeuwen door andere Vlamingen werden genoemd, is ons nog overgeleverd geworden en bewaard gebleven.
Daar zijn nog oudere Vlaamsche spotnamen bekend, dan dezen van 1560. In de Anzeiger für Kunde der Teutschen Vorzeit, jaargang 1835, bladzijde 299 vindt men een lijstje van die namen medegedeeld, ’t welk volgens de meening van sommige geleerden tusschen de jaren 1347 en 1414 moet zijn opgesteld. Deze middeleeuwsche spotnamen zijn in hoofdzaak de zelfden als die men in „den langhen Adieu” vindt opgesomd. Sommigen echter wijken in meerdere of mindere mate af van de namen in dat [81]rijm voorkomende. Zoo heeten in dit middeleeuwsche lijstje de ingezetenen van Poperingen Va c h t p l o t e r s , terwijl E D ze Va c h t p l u c k e r s noemt; die van Meenen P e l s m a k e r s , tegenover de C a n d e e l e t e r s van D ; die van Werveke Ve r w a t e n l i e d e n , tegenover de
D r o o g h a e r t s van D ; die van Deinse G a r e n c o e p e r s
tegenover de C a e r d e m a e c k e r s van D . En er worden in het oude lijstje ook eenigen genoemd, die D niet heeft; bij voorbeeld de Wa f e l e t e r s van Bethune, de U t r e c h t s c h e
V l a m i n g e n van de Vier-Ambachten, de P l a t t e G e s e l l e n van Sleedingen (hedendaags Sleidinge), de D a n s e r s van Everghem, de S c i p h e e r e n van der Sluus, de Tu u s c h e r s van Theemsche (hedendaags Temseke), en anderen.
Ook in dit lijstje vinden de taalgeleerde en de geschiedkundige veel van hunne gading, ter verklaring; zoo als de Tu u s c h e r s (Ruilers, in ’t hedendaagsche Friesch nog túskers, tyskers) van Temseke en de S c i p h e e r e n van der Sluus. Deze laatste naam dagteekent uit den middeleeuwschen tijd, toen het hedendaagsche stille en vervallene stedeke Sluis, thans tot het Zeeuwsche deel van Vlaanderen, dus tot Noord-Nederland behoorende, eene bloeiende Vlaamsche handelsstad was, de mededingster van het naburige Brugge. Vele rijke reeders (S c i p h e e r e n ) woonden toen daar.
En dan de U t r e c h t s e V l a m i n g e n van de Vier-Ambachten, die nog herinneren aan den overouden tijd toen de noordelijkste gouw van Vlaanderland, in de middeleeuwen de Vier-Ambachten genoemd, en thans Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen, soms ook nog StaatschVlaanderen geheeten, in het kerkelijke niet tot een Vlaamsch bisdom (Gent of Brugge) behoorden, maar tot het aartsbisdom van Utrecht. In deze gouw toch was de bevolking in de vroege middeleeuwen hoofdzakelijk van Frieschen bloede, en de Friezen bewesten Lauwers en bewesten Flie behoorden, sedert ze Christenen waren, tot dat aartsbisdom. Van daar dat de Vlamingen van Hulst en Aksel, van Biervliet en Aardenburg hier U t r e c h t s c h e V l a m i n g e n worden geheeten. Men zie over deze zaak mijn werk Oud Nederland, de aanteekeningen op bladzijden 109 en 110.
De ingezetenen van Duinkerke worden in den Langhen Adieu [82]en eveneens in dit oude lijstje C o n y n e t e r s genoemd, en deze naam is voor lieden die midden in het duin, midden in die meest geliefde verblijfplaats der konijnen wonen, en die aan die ligging in de duinen zelfs den naam hunner stad ontleend hebben, zeker zeer eigenaardig en gepast. Ik zelf echter, eenige jaren geleden een en ander maal te Duinkerke vertoevende, en daar den luiden vragende naar hunnen spotnaam, en naar die van andere Fransch-Vlamingen, kreeg telkens ten antwoord: K e u n e t e r s van Duunkerke.15 Hieruit blijkt dat keun de Vlaamsche benaming is van konijn; en in der daad vinden we ook in D B ’s Westvlaamsch Idioticon het woord keun voor konijn aangegeven. De ingezetenen van het dorp Heist op Zee, bij Brugge, en dat ook midden in het duin aan zee gelegen is (als Zandvoort), dragen heden ten dage almede den spotnaam van K e u n s (Konijnen). Door onze taalgeleerden wordt ons hedendaagsch algemeen Nederlandsch woord konijn voorgesteld als afgeleid of herkomstig van het Latijnsche woord cuniculus. Het is toch opmerkelijk, ja, het komt mij zonderling voor, zelfs ongelooflijk, dat zulk een algemeen bekend inlandsch dier als het konijn is, dat bij duizendtallen in onze zeeduinen, en ook binnen ’s lands op heidevelden en in woeste, zandige streken leeft, niet eenen oorspronkelijk Nederlandschen, oorspronkelijk Dietschen, niet eenen echt Germaanschen naam zoude hebben. Is misschien dit Westvlaamsche keun de eigenlijke, de oorspronkelijk Dietsche naam van het konijn? En moet men ons hedendaagsch woord konijn dan als een oude verkleinvorm van keun (koon, kone) beschouwen? Heeft ons woord konijn dan misschien niets met het Latijnsche woord cuniculus te maken? En hebben dan, juist andersom, de Romeinen hun woord cuniculus misschien afgeleid van ons woord keun? Allemaal vragen, die ik niet beantwoorden kan, maar die den taalvorscher zeker belangstelling zullen inboezemen. [83]
De ingezetenen van sommige gewesten, landstreken en eilanden in hun geheel, ja sommige volken hebben ook wel hunne spotnamen. Ook hierop wil ik nog kortelijk wijzen. Zoo heeten de Friezen
S t ij f k o p p e n , Noord-Bevelanders bij de andere Zeeuwen
P e e v r e t e r s , en de Zuid-Bevelanders P a d d e l a n d e r s . (Peeën, dat is Zeeuwsch voor wortelen—de gewone als spijs gebruikte wortelen van Daucus carota, en beetwortelen). De opgezetenen van ’t eiland Walcheren in ’t bijzonder, op welk eiland, naar men zegt, geen kikvorschen en geen padden voorkomen, noemen dus het eiland Zuid-Beveland, waar deze amphibiën wel gevonden worden, smadelijk ’t P a d d e l a n d . Die van Texel heeten
K w a l l e n , en die van Wieringen S k e p e n (Schapen), ’t is op bl. 62 en 63 reeds vermeld.
De Engelschman J o h n B u l l , de Franschman J e a n P o t a g e e n zijn wijf M a r i a n n e , J a n t j e - K a a s de Hollander (door Vlamingen en Brabanders zoo genoemd) en de Duitsche M i c h e l of H a n s - M i c h e l zijn overbekend. Overbekend is ook in onze dagen de spotnaam R o o i n e k en R o o i b a a i t j i e , dien onze Zuid-Afrikaansche stamgenooten den Engelschman geven. De Hollanders in ’t bijzonder hebben ook nog eenen bijzonderen spotnaam voor den Duitscher, dien ze M o f noemen. Naar den oorsprong van dezen naam is door velen vruchteloos gezocht. Opmerkelijk is het dat de Duitschers, die langs onze oostelijke grenzen wonen, dien spotnaam M o f (zij zeggen M u f ) wederkeerig op de Nederlanders toepassen, en ons H o l l a n d e r - M u f noemen; zie T D K , Wörterbuch der Ostfriesischen Sprache, waar almede eene verklaring van dit woord Muf of Mof te vinden is. De Nederlanders noemen geheel Duitschland wel M o ff r i k a , maar de Duitschers zelven geven dien naam M u ff r i k a in ’t bijzonder aan eene kleine gouw, langs onze grenzen zich uitstrekkende, aan het zoogenoemde Nedersticht van
Munster, tusschen Oost-Friesland en Bentheim gelegen, en de stadjes Meppen en Lingen met omstreken omvattende.
De Friezen hebben nog eenen bijzonderen spotnaam voor de Duitschers in ’t algemeen; zij noemen dezen P o e p e n . Dit woord poep is een bijzonder, een raadselachtig woord. Dat het niet het woord poep is, in de gewone algemeen Nederlandsche volks- vooral kinderspreektaal van bekende beteekenis, blijkt hieruit dat de Friezen beide woorden nauwkeurig in uitspraak onderscheiden. [84]Zij, met hun fijn en nauwkeurig onderscheidend taalgehoor, spreken in den spotnaam P o e p dit woord uit met den zeer duidelijk hoorbaren t w e e klank oe; terwijl ze, waar dit woord de andere beteekenis heeft, slechts eenen enkelvoudigen klank laten hooren, de u der Duitschers, de ou der Franschen. Uit nauwkeurige, en steeds strikt volgehoudene onderscheid in uitspraak tusschen den enkelvoudigen en den twee-klank oe, dat zoowel den Friezen als den West- en Zee-Vlamingen thans nog bijzonder eigen is, maar oudtijds algemeen Dietsch moet geweest zijn, verbiedt om aan te nemen dat dit woord poep in beide beteekenissen van een en den zelfden oorsprong zoude zijn. Maar wat het woord poep als spotnaam dan wel zijn mag, van oorsprongswegen, het is mij niet gelukt dit uit te vorschen.
De Friezen geven den naam P o e p wel aan de Duitschers in het algemeen, maar in ’t bijzonder aan den Westfaalschen grasmaaier en aan den Westfaalschen koopman in kleedingstoffen en kleedingstukken, die met een groot pak van zijn koopwaar op den rug, het Friesche platteland afreist, en die, ter onderscheiding van zijnen landsman den grasmaaier, door de Friezen F y n d o e k s p o e p genoemd wordt.
Overdrachtelijk noemt men in de Friesche gewesten (immers Groningerland doet hierin mede, volgens M ’ Woordenboek
der Groningsche volkstaal) een paard of eene koe van Duitsch, gewoonlijk Oldenburgsch, zoogenoemd Bovenlandsch ras, ook p o e p ; en zelfs eene bijzondere soort van aardappelen, ook van Duitsche herkomst, en die anders wel „Munsterlanders” heeten, noemt de Friesche boer p o e p e n . Ja, onze Friesche zeeman geeft zelfs aan een schip (kof of tjalk), dat in Oost-Friesche en WeserFriesche havens thuis behoort, en dit door geringe afwijkingen in bouw en tuig bemerkbaar doet zijn, den naam van p o e p .
Ook in noordelijk Noord-Holland, almede oorspronkelijk eene Friesche gouw, is de spotnaam P o e p , G r a s p o e p , G r o e n e P o e p voor den Duitschen Grasmaaier in gebruik, volgens Dr. G. J. B ’ werk De Zaansche Volkstaal, en volgens J.
B ’ werk De Volkstaal in Noord-Holland.
De echte Friezen in ’t land tusschen Flie en Lauwers beperken hunnen spotnaam P o e p niet enkel tot de Duitschers. Ook de Groningerlanders en de Drenten noemen ze P o e p e n , en [85]zelfs de ingezetenen van de Friesche dorpen Kollum en Burum (in uitspraak Boerum), die, ofschoon nog bewesten Lauwers wonende, toch niet de zuivere Friesche taal spreken, maar eenen gemengden tongval, een overgang van het Stad-Friesch tot het Groningerlandsch—zelfs dezen moeten zich den spotnaam
P o e p e n laten welgevallen, alsof ze, door hunnen afwijkenden tongval, reeds halve Groningerlanders, en alsof de Groningerlanders, met hun Friso-Sassisch bloed en met hunne Friso-Sassische gouwspraak reeds halve Duitschers waren.
Opmerkelijk is het, dat men dit woord P o e p als spotnaam ook hier en daar elders in de Nederlanden terug vindt. De ingezetenen van Deventer toch dragen bij de andere Overijsselaars en bij de Gelderschen in hunne nabuurschap ook dezen naam. En ook de Zeeuwen noemen hunne Vlaamsche en Brabantsche naburen
P o e p e n . Zoo hoorde ik in 1869 door een paar burgers van Goes zeggen, van een gezelschap boeren en boerinnen uit de polders van Zandvliet bij Antwerpen, die door ’t stadje Goes ronddwaalden: „’t zijn maar P o e p e n ,” eenigszins minachtender wijze, juist zoo als de Friezen spreken van de Duitschers. Volgens D (zelf een Zeeuwsche Vlaming), Nieuw Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal, is p o e p een scheldnaam dien de bewoners van Zuid-Beveland aan de bewoners van Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen geven. En volgens D B ’ Westvlaamsch Idioticon noemt men in West-Vlaanderen „iemand die weinig verstand of weinig moed heeft,” een „dwazerik” dus, of een „lafaard”, een „p o e p g a a i .”
De oorsprong en de verspreiding van dezen raadselachtigen spotnaam P o e p uit te vorschen, zal zeker wel de moeite loonen.
Als eene bijzondere uiting van volkseigenaard en van speelsch volksvernuft, dienen ten slotte nog vermeld te worden eenige rijmkes, die van sommige gouwen en eilanden, van sommige steden en dorpen, ook van groepen van nabij elkanderen gelegene plaatsen, bij het volk bekend zijn, en die als ter kenschetsing dienen van sommige bijzonderheden, aan die gouwen en plaatsen eigen. Deze rijmkes zijn uit de zelfde bron gevloeid, waaruit ook de spotnamen ontstaan zijn; zij komen er in aard en strekking, veelvuldig ook in oorsprong en in eigenaardig wezen mede overeen, ja, zijn eigenlijk slechts als eene uitbreiding [86]daarvan te beschouwen. Ik wil slechts enkele van die rijmkes hier mededeelen, om de aandacht daarop te vestigen van navorschers, van allen die belang stellen in volkseigene zaken, en die zulke zaken nog in tijds behouden willen, eer de nieuwe tijd ze uit het geheugen der menschen zal hebben doen verdwijnen.
Over al de Nederlanden zijn deze rijmkes verspreid, en, even als de spotnamen, ook over Oost-Friesland en andere nabij gelegene gouwen van naburige landen, waar de bevolking met die van onze eigene gewesten zoo menig punt van overeenkomst heeft, of daarmede oorspronkelijk eenzelvig is. Een enkel van die Oostfriesche rijmkes, de stad Aurik betreffende, is reeds op bladzijde 58 hiervoren medegedeeld. Anderen uit de Friesche gewesten beoosten Eems kan men vinden in K en W , Ostfriesland wie es denkt und spricht (Norden, 1869). Een paar rijmkes van ’t Ameland vindt men op bladzijden 27 en 28 hiervoren vermeld. Een paar andere uit Friesland zijn nog:
Oostergoo het land, Westergoo het geld. De Wouden het verstand, De Steden het geweld.
Hier wordt op geestige wijze het kenmerkende van de drie gouwen, Oostergoo, Westergoo en de Zevenwouden, waarin Friesland tusschen Flie en Lauwers van ouds her verdeeld is, met de elf steden, uiteengezet.
Dokkum is een oude stad, Een oude stad boven maten; Daar verkoopt men anders niet Als taai en ook garnaten.
In der daad, de stad Dokkum dagteekent reeds uit zeer ouden tijd; reeds ten jare 754 verkondigde Sint-Bonifacius daar het Evangelie. Het Dokkumer taai, eene soort van grof Sint-Nicolaasgebak, is in geheel Friesland vermaard. En wat de Dokkumer garnaten (garnalen) aangaat, daar moet men maar niet te luide van spreken, als er Dokkumers bij zijn (zie bladzijde 21 en vervolgens). [87]
Zeer aardig kenschetsend zijn deze twee rijmkes, van een
Utrechtsch en van een Noordbrabantsch dorp:
Neêr-Langbroek, Die schrale hoek!
Daar wonen niets dan edellui
En bedellui, Ridders
En broodbidders; Daar staan anders niet als kasteelen en nesten, Sterkenburg is het beste.
Loon-op-Zand, Licht volk, licht land;
Ze schooien den kost.
En ze stelen den brand.16
Tamelijk onbeduidend daarentegen is het volgende rijmke van drie
Zeeuwsch-Vlaamsche dorpen Breskens, Schoondijke en de Groede:
De Bressianen
Zijn hanen,
Maar voor Schoondijke
Moeten ze wijken, En komen die van de Groe, Dan houden ze beter hun deuren maar toe!
Veelal heerscht in deze rijmkes een schimpende, smalende toon tegenover andere naburige plaatsen, afgewisseld met lof voor de eigene woonplaats. Bij voorbeeld uit Drente:
Koevorden is een fraaie stad, Dalen is een moddergat,
Wachtum is een eendepoel, Hesselen is een koningsstoel.
Of uit Overijssel en Gelderland:
Deventer is een koopstad, Zutfen is een loopstad, Lochem is nog wat, Maar Borkeloo is een hondegat.
[88]
Van groote ingenomenheid met zich zelven getuigt het volgende rijm van sommige Noordhollandsche steden, dat bij de Monnikendammers in zwang is:
Amsterdam ligt aan het IJ, Monnikendam daar wonen wij; Edam is een nest, Hoorn doet zijn best, Enkhuizen staat op tonnen. Medemblik heeft het gewonnen.
Aardig is het rijmke van Kootwijk, een zeer nederig dorpke op de Veluwe:
Kootwijk is een zoetendal, En die er is die blijft er al.
Zoetendal, ten Sueten dale—dat klinkt zoo middeleeuwsch liefelijk! Wie weet hoe oud dit rijm al is!
Ten slotte kan ik nog een zeer bijzonder rijm hier mede deelen, dat betrekking heeft op de Friesche eilandenreeks die zich uitstrekt tusschen de Weser en het Marsdiep, en dat door mij is
opgeschreven uit den mond van eenen Frieschen schipperszoon, die met de tjalk van zijnen vader wel oostwaarts naar Emden, Bremen en Hamburg, en wel zuidwaarts naar Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Dordrecht en Antwerpen voer. Het rijm is niet in de eigenlijke Friesche taal opgesteld, maar in het zoogenoemde StadFriesch of „Stêdsk”, dat is Oud-Dietsch met Friesche woorden en woordvormen vermengd, en met eenen Frieschen mond uitgesproken.
Wrangero de skoone, Spikeroog de krone, Langeroog is ’n butterfat En Baltrum is ’n sangat.
En de Norderneyers frete har mar half sat Juust dat is ’n rooverland; En Borkum is ’n tooverland; Rottumeroog is ’n klein land, Mar Skiermonnikoog is sterk bemand: De Amelander skalken
Hewwe stolen drie balken, Avons in ’e maneskijn, Daarom sal ’t har wapen sijn. [89]
Skilingen het ’n hooge toren, Flielan het siin naam ferloren, Tessel is mar ’n seegat, De Helderse Tr a a n b o k k e n segge dat.
Eenige opmerkingen mogen dit rijm nader toelichten.
Wrangero (ook de visscherlieden van Urk, die ter uitoefening van hun bedrijf op de Noordzee wel tot bij dit eiland komen, spreken dezen naam nog op deze Oud-Friesche wijze uit)—Wrangero is een oude en zeer goede, oorspronkelijk Friesche naamsvorm, ouder en
beter dan Wangeroog of Wangerooge, zoo als dit eiland thans in ’t geijkte Nederlandsch en Hoogduitsch heet. Oudtijds woonde aan den vasten wal, aan de Noordzeekust waar dit eiland tegenover ligt, westelijk van den Wesermond, een Friesche volksstam, WrangerFriezen genoemd. (Hunne rechtstreeksche nakomelingen wonen daar nog heden in het thans zoo genoemde Jeverland en Butjadingerland). Toenmaals noemde men het land dier WrangerFriezen Wrangerland, en het eiland daarnevens in de Noordzee: Wrangero, Wranger-o. De woordvormen o, oe (eu) ei (in ons woord eiland nog bestaande en in den eilandsnaam Nordernei eveneens) zijn oorspronkelijk eenzelvig met het hedendaagsche oog, in Süderoog (Noord-Friesland), Wangeroog, (Weser-Friesland), Langeroog (Oost-Friesland), Schiermonnikoog (Friesland tusschen Flie en Lauwers), Valkoog (West-Friesland of Noord-Holland), enz.
Skilingen is de Friesche naamsvorm voor ’t eiland ter Schelling, beter Schellingerland, dat in het dorp Wester-Schelling in der daad eenen zeer hoogen toren heeft, de vuurtoren of Brandaris, die het geheele zeegat van ’t Flie verlicht.
Flieland heeft althans voor de helft zijnen naam verloren. De westelijke helft van dit eiland, met het aldaar gelegene dorp WestFlieland is in de 17de eeuw ten deele, maar in de vorige eeuw volkomen door de zee vernield en weggeslagen. Er is daar nog maar eene zandplaat van over, die nu de Hors heet. Inderdaad, „Flieland heeft zijn naam verloren.”
Dit is het einde van mijn opstel over spotnamen, spotrijmen, enz. Mogen anderen hierin aanleiding vinden dit belangrijke onderwerp nog eens beter en uitvoeriger te behandelen. [90]
BRONNEN EN LITTERATUUR OVER SPOTNAMEN, ENZ.
Het tijdschrift De Navorscher (Amsterdam, 1851 en vervolgens), in verschillende jaargangen. Men zie de Algemeene Registers, op „Namen (Nederlandsche Spot- en Scheldnamen).”
Ons Volksleven. Tijdschrift voor taal-, volks- en oudheidkunde, onder leiding van J . C en J. B. V . Brecht (bij Braeckmans, 1889 en vervolgens) in verschillende jaargangen.
A. M , Iets over de spotnamen onzer Belgische steden. Antwerpen, 1847.
Friesland en de Friezen (Plaatselijke schimpnamen). Leeuwarden, 1877.
Dr. E. L , Vlechtwerk. Amsterdam, 1880. Idem, Sprokkelhout. Amsterdam, 1887. Idem, Op uw’ stoel door uw land. Amsterdam, 1891. [91]
Vermoedelijk komen soortgelijke spotnamen als de Nederlandsche, wel in alle landen en bij alle volken voor Eenigen van die namen uit Duitschland vindt men vermeld in het Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins für Niederdeutsche Sprachforschung, VIII, 47; en anderen uit Frankrijk in De Navorscher, XV, 318. En wat Engeland aan gaat, de spotnaam van de Londenaars, Cockneys, is daar algemeen bekend. ↑
De Dokkumer kleermaker spreekt hier natuurlijk ook de dagelijksche spreektaal van Dokkum dat is: gewoon stad-Friesch, met enkele bijzonderheden. Bij voorbeeld: Luwarden en sil, waar de Leeuwarders Leewarden en sal zeggen. Ook brengt de Dokkumer tongval meê, dat de lange a eenigermate naar den aai klank zweemende wordt uitgesproken. Van daar dat andere Friesche stedelingen de
