because it works - jrf

i

Best practice in regenerationBecause it works

Tony Trott

PPP R E S S

POLICY

ii

Best practice in regeneration

First published in Great Britain in November 2002 by

The Policy Press

34 Tyndall’s Park Road

Bristol BS8 1PY

UK

Tel no +44 (0)117 954 6800

Fax no +44 (0)117 973 7308

E-mail [email protected]

www.policypress.org.uk

© Tony Trott 2002

Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press

ISBN 1 86134 455 4

Tony Trott is a consultant specialising in effective social interventions.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any

form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written

permission of the Publishers.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative

development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts

presented and views expressed in this report are, however, those of the author and not necessarily those of the

Foundation.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the author and not of The University

of Bristol or The Policy Press. The University of Bristol and The Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to

persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication.

The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality.

Front cover: Cover photograph of community art on a Waltham Forest Housing Association Trust estate. Image kindly

supplied by www.third-avenue.co.uk

Cover design by Qube Design Associates, Bristol.

Printed in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers Ltd, Southampton.

iii

ContentsAcknowledgements iv

1 Introduction 1

2 Scope 3Who was involved? 3How did it operate? 6What did it cover? 6

3 Process 8How the project worked 8Why organisations participated 8Who else they involved 9Diverse subjects and interest at different levels 9Lessons 9

4 Interventions: Part 1 – The Joseph Rowntree Foundation menu 11Mixed and flexible tenure 11Community lettings 13Lifetime homes 16Community development work 16Reflections on the menu 18

5 Interventions: Part 2 – Participants’ issues 19Economic development 19Partnership working 21The role of housing providers 21Anti-poverty strategies 22Accountability to the community 22Mutual aid 22

6 Conclusion 23••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

iv


I am grateful to the Joseph Rowntree Foundationfor funding the project, and for taking a close,supportive, and critical interest in the issues beingexplored. Particular thanks go to Richard Best forthe initial configuration and his ongoinginvolvement; and to Peter Marcus for his activeengagement both in practical matters, and in thedevelopment of the key themes which emergedin the course of the project.

This work could not have happened without theinterest and involvement of the four regenerationprogrammes which came together for the project.People throughout these organisations, and theirpartners, participated in the wide range ofactivities promoted by the project, and havehence contributed to the lessons which have beenlearned. Particular thanks go to:

Richard Clark and Philip James at the FocusHousing Group

Ken Bartlett, Kamal Faizi, Sue Bickler andDebbie Bednarek at the Stepney Housing andDevelopment Agency

Andrea Titterington and Bob Young atMaritime Housing Association and theTranmere Regeneration Partnership

Paul McCabe at the York RegenerationPartnership.

Acknowledgements

1

Introduction

The last 10 years have seen increasing recognitionthat regeneration which concentrates only onbricks and mortar is likely to fail – and in manycases the failure comes long before the bricks andmortar have been paid for. It was not surprisingthen that the National Strategy Action Plan forneighbourhood renewal, launched by the SocialExclusion Unit in 2001, targets problems in thelocal economy, social organisation andinfrastructure, rather than the physical conditionof the social housing stock.

However, with this new approach it is critical thattwo aspects of conventional capital programmesare brought into the neighbourhood renewalagenda.

First, there are, and will continue to be, majorcapital interventions which set out to tackle poorquality housing over a relatively short period.How can the capital spend process contribute tothe new agenda so as to secure wider and morelasting benefits?

Second, social housing organisations are in it forthe duration. Their ongoing, routine, revenue-ledbusiness as landlords outlasts the capitalinterventions. How do they feed into the newagenda?

Although this project predated the SocialExclusion Unit’s report, its focus is on theintegration of these issues as being central to thesuccess of neighbourhood renewal activities.

The project worked with, and sometimes within,four regeneration programmes, operating inwidely different circumstances, and throughdifferent means. Nonetheless, they experiencedmany similar problems. The project had twopractical functions. One was to test out four

1

examples of good practice identified by theJoseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), both throughcommissioned research and through the work ofits Housing Trust. The other was to provideconsultancy support to the four programmes onresolving problem issues which they identified.

This report is not a blueprint for all regenerationprogrammes. What works in one place may beimpossible or irrelevant in another. Although theproject started with the promotion of specifictechniques, it soon became clear that the processof collaboration between the programmes was asvaluable as the technical content. Out of thiscollaboration, the four diverse programmesconsistently found that, despite their differences,they faced similar problems, or problems withcommon themes. They were able to draw oneach other’s experience in generating, refiningand improving their distinctive local responses.

The project covered a wide range of socialinterventions. Although their application variedbetween the programmes, they nonethelessdemonstrated a consistent set of key issues whichhave to be addressed if regeneration work is tocontinue to have benefits beyond the relativelyshort time-scale of the specific intervention.

This report is in five chapters:

• Chapter 2 describes how the project was setup, what it set out to do, how it operated, andwho took part.

• Chapter 3 describes how the project wascarried out, the role of the participants indetermining its content, the promotion ofinformation exchanges between theprogrammes, and the extent to which solutionswere identified through the pooling ofproblems.

2


• Chapter 4 describes the four examples of goodpractice which JRF wanted to test in a diverserange of situations, their relevance to each ofthe projects, the problems in their application,and the issues raised by them.

• Chapter 5 describes the other issues raised bythe four programmes, how they attempted totackle them, and the impact they had.

• Chapter 6 sets out the lessons which have beenlearned, and the matters which emerged as thekey issues for ensuring that interventions willhave the capacity to outlast the immediatefocus of a regeneration programme.

3

2Scope

Who was involved?

The project arose out of three quite separaterequests for support made at around the sametime in 1998, to JRF, by organisations involved inregeneration programmes. JRF responded byproposing a linked project of support and reviewwhich offered consultancy assistance to theprogrammes, as well as seeking test bedopportunities for JRF’s own menu of successfulfeatures of social housing provision. A fourthregeneration programme, in which JRF wasalready extensively involved, was added tocomplete the project.

The four programmes participating in the projectwere:

Stepney Housing and Development Agency(SHADA)

SHADA is the implementation agent for a SingleRegeneration Budget (SRB) programme for theregeneration of pre- and post-war housing onparts of two adjoining local authority housingestates in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.The programme is centred on the demolition andreplacement of over 800 properties, andrehabilitation of a further 200. It runs from 1996-2002.

The key features of the programme’s workingenvironment were:

• the area is one which for several centuries hasbeen a revolving entry point for immigrantgroups;

• the housing is part of a large swathe of socialhousing, which is the dominant tenure, laid outas estates;

• there are small pockets of old terraced housingstreet patterns;

• the area is very close to the City of London,and the new London Docklands commercialand residential development;

• these adjoining areas enjoy high earningswhich affect all property values, and create aneconomic and social chasm between thetenants of social housing and all otherresidents;

• although the estate environment lacks physicalfocus, residents differentiate strongly betweendifferent parts of the area on the basis of estatenames and boundaries;

• there is a racial mix, without much racialintegration, but also without widespread overthostility;

• the estate layout, and low sense of communityownership, creates unused patches of openspace, giving rise to lowish densities coupledwith poor amenity.

Tranmere Housing Regeneration Partnership(THRP)

THRP is a joint commissioning partnershipbetween Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,The Housing Corporation, Maritime HousingAuthority, and Riverside Housing Authority. Itoperates in an area of older terraced housing,with high levels of low value owner-occupation.It was set up originally as a three-yearintervention programme by the housingassociations (1998-2001) aimed at preventingdecline in housing values, and the consequentrisks of abandonment. It expects to be extendedfor a further three years.


4


• much of this part of Tranmere is old terracedhousing and shops, with only pockets of post-war social housing;

• loss of major shipbuilding and relatedwaterside activities means that much of thenorth of the Wirral is a dormitory forMerseyside;

• the poorer housing in Tranmere is mostlyowner-occupied, but has residual valuessubstantially below the costs of outstandingrepairs and improvements – typically £20,000-£40,000 worth of works increase values by lessthan £10,000;

• the poorest housing can be bypassed by mostaspiring owner-occupiers, leaving few saleoptions for existing owners wanting to move;

• recent re-use of the docks for ship repair, andshipbuilding is a slow long-term developmentneeding a completely retrained workforce,which will not necessarily live in the old dockworkers’ housing of the immediate area;

• city centre renewal depends on drawing in anew employed population – partly throughmarket renting by registered social landlords;

• there are a large number of specialist localinterventions which are not always wellcoordinated.

Breaking the Cycle Partnership (BCP)

BCP is a SRB programme in Aston in Birmingham.It was the first SRB to be approved in which thelocal authority is not a partner. It runs from 1996-2003. The programme is lead by Focus HousingGroup (now Prime Focus), as coordinator forsupport to a wide range of local projects. Thecentral purpose of the programme is capacitybuilding for residents and groups. The SRBfunding does not include any new capital works,but Focus are carrying out major repairs to theirstock in the area as part of the programme, fromtheir own resources.


• Aston abuts the city centre, but does notbenefit from it economically;

• it has high levels of unemployment;• it is predominantly residential and split

geographically into post-war council housing,and old terraced housing;

• the terraced housing is mostly owner-occupiedand of low value;

• Focus owns around 1,000 street properties,which is about 20% of the older houses;

• there is a range of local agencies, some ofwhich are very well established, supportingvoluntary sector activity, and small-scale localeconomic renewal.

York Regeneration Partnership (YRP)

YRP was a SRB programme led by the localauthority, arising out of the closure of a majorlocal industry, the carriage building works, whichhad been active in York since the start of therailways. The programme centred onregeneration of the industrial site and theattraction of new industry to it. Part of the site isbeing used for new social housing developmentsby three registered social landlords. In parallelthere was an employment project dealing withtraining and placement. There was a communityinvolvement programme for the adjoining fivewards. The programme ran from 1996-2001.


• the loss of a major local industry which wasthe spur for SRB funding;

• the inclusion of some social housing, and acommunity involvement programme wereessentially afterthoughts, introduced mainly tomeet SRB bidding requirements at the time, notbecause of existing levels or organisation ordemand;

• the industrial site was heavily contaminated,leading to expensive clearance works, andcomplications in responsibility and control,which affected budgets and time-scale;

• the area selected for the SRB bid is very large,with around 30,000 households;

• the new employment and housingopportunities are concentrated in a relativelysmall patch at the city centre end of the area,and are irrelevant to most of the residents;

• although most people are not directly affected,the carriage works has strong local culturalresonance;

• the housing in the area covers the full range oftenure, and a wide range of quality and value;

• the concentration of new social housing onone site has led to management problemswhich would not have arisen had this housingbeen dispersed across the area;

5

Scope

Table 1: Key features of the four programmes

Aspect Programme features

Place Stepney Tranmere Aston York

Type SRB Joint Commission SRB SRB

Contact SHADA Maritime Focus JRF

Time-scale19961997199819992000200120022003

PartnersLocal authority London Borough Wirral Metropolitan [Birmingham County City of York

of Tower Hamlets Borough Council Council] CouncilCentral governmentHousing CorporationTenants’/residents’ associations Credit union Community forumOther RSLs C33 + BG +VPHA Riverside HA Home HAOther Resource + advice North York

centres Training andEnterprise CouncilEnglish Partnerships

Properties (no)New 830 22 90Rehab 200+ 71 250Other 50 owner-occupier

Money (£m)Local authority £41m including land £1m to RSLs £2.3m

£1m grantsCentral government £15m SRB £2m SRB £3m SRBHousing corporation £22m £1m £1.3mSelf-funded £2.4m both RSLs £2.7m £2.6mOther RSLs £47m £2mOther £1.4m education £7m developers

£1.3m voluntary £10m Englishsector Partnerships

£0.7m EU £0.2m educationTotal £125m £5.5m £8.2m £28.6m

Non-housing actionEmployment LLiCSocial inclusionEconomic inclusionEnvironmentSecurityEducationTransportOther Community safety Community safety New businesses New + refurb industry

Safe play Parks Voluntary sector New businessesgrowth

JRF menuLifetime homesMixed and flexible tenureLocal lettingsCommunity development

GovernanceIn houseInformal partnersFormal partnershipSeparate body

6


• community involvement in the programmecame after the event, and after all the mainprogramme priorities had already beendecided;

• community involvement was facilitated bysubstantial revenue support from JRF, and bythe allocation of a community fund within theSRB funding.

The project was conducted for JRF by aconsultant, Tony Trott, who coordinated theinteractions, arranged the activities, providedmuch of the specialist advice, brought inconsultants in other fields when appropriate, andcollated and developed the emerging views onthe key issues and how to respond to them.

Table 1 compares the key features of the fourprogrammes.

How did it operate?

The process and implications for regenerationprogrammes are explained more fully in Chapter3. Briefly, the project operated at four principallevels:

• visits and strategy meetings: there was a roundof morning visits to each of the programmesfollowed by afternoon discussions of thestrategic issues they had to confront;

• information exchanges: managerial and servicedelivery staff met to review their approaches tospecific activities based on short presentationsfrom each of the programmes;

• seminars: there were joint training sessions inselected subjects, which built on informationexchanges, but also used the consultant andoutside specialists to widen the knowledgebase;

• consultancy support: was available toindividual programmes within specific subjectsto clarify problems, identify appropriatesources of support, and arrange or provide it.

At each level, each programme determined whowould be involved, both from within their ownorganisation, and from their partners. The seniorstaff attending the visits and strategy meetingswould probably have found time for this type ofreview, in any event. However, the project alsoprovided opportunities, rarely afforded to service

delivery staff, to review their activities with theirpeers in other programmes.

The subjects of the information exchanges,seminars and consultancy support weredetermined by the participating programmes.

What did it cover?

JRF exists to help understand how and whysociety does not work. JRF has a strong interestin physical and social regeneration, not just fromthe housing point of view, but also in terms ofpoverty, the economy and social cohesion.Alongside work commissioned from academicsand practitioners, it runs its own social housingorganisation – the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust(JRHT), which has 2,200 properties in and aroundYork. These include the Trust’s original modelvillage estate of 1,100 properties at NewEarswick.

JRHT has consistently sought out and appliedfeatures of social housing provision andmanagement, which it believes contribute to theestablishment and maintenance of successfulcommunities. JRF wanted, within the project, totest the applicability of some of these features ina range of other circumstances. Not all theprogrammes lent themselves to applying all thefeatures, and the project was therefore expandedto provide support for, and review of, otherinterventions.

JRF’s menu of success features consisted of:

• mixed and flexible tenure: that is, the use ofhome ownership dotted among rented housing,with the option for shared owners to staircasedown as well as up;

• community lettings: that is, lettings systemswhich incorporate applicants’ aspirations tolive within the area as a whole, not just theircurrent housing needs matched against thefacilities inside the front door;

• lifetime homes: that is, properties built to aspecification which provides for futureadaptations to assist with limited mobility, andhence moulds the home to needs of theresident, not the other way round;

• community development work: that is, activesupport for strengthening residents’

7

opportunities for creating their own successfulcommunities.

The application of these features to the fourprogrammes is described in Chapter 4.

During the course of the project, the participatingprogrammes raised the following additional issuesfor support or review:

• economic development;• partnership working;• the role of housing providers;• anti-poverty strategies;• accountability to the community;• mutual aid.

The way these issues bore on the participatingprogrammes is described in Chapter 5.

Scope

8


3

How the project worked

The hallmark of the project is that it provided thefour programmes with the opportunity to re-examine what they were trying to achieve, andhow they set about it, in the light of otherexperiences and information. The features of theprocess were that it was:

• self-reflective: in that each programmequestioned its own activities by searching outits similarities with any of the otherprogrammes;

• critical: in that each programme was subject toa degree of peer group review both at theoverall strategic level, and also in terms offront-line activities;

• interventionist: in that programmes were askedto examine the applicability of the JRF menu totheir own housing element;

• supportive: in that the project provided theconsultant and outside specialists to advise onspecific problems.

These four aspects of scrutiny and support weredelivered in the following ways:

• Visits and strategy meetings: each programmein turn provided a half-day tour of their areaand presentation about their programme. Thiswas followed by afternoon discussions whichreviewed the strategic issues they had toconfront, and identified subjects for moredetailed examination through one of the othermeans.

• Information exchanges: managerial and servicedelivery staff from the four programmes met toreview their approaches to specific activitiesbased on short presentations from each of theprogrammes. These exchanges were used for

Process

reviews of community development work, andcommunity lettings. The lettings exchangeincluded contributions from outside bodiescurrently re-examining their approach tolettings.

• Seminars: there were joint training sessions inselected subjects, which used the sameapproach as the information exchanges, butused the consultant or incorporated outsidespecialists to widen the knowledge base, andprovide a technical critique of the approachtaken by the programmes. Outside specialistswere used for work on mixed and flexibletenure, and business and economicdevelopment.

• Consultancy support: individual programmeswere provided with access to specialists tohelp them explore a range of issues andactions, covering anti-poverty strategies,affordable water, safe play provision,community lettings negotiations, developingcoordination between health and housingproviders, and community accountability.

Why organisations participated

The extent to which the four programmesengaged with the project varied widely. Thisreflects their different reasons for participating.

Before the project was conceived, SHADA inStepney had reached agreement with JRF for aproject which would both test the latter’s menu,and offer additional consultancy support forSHADA. This early agreement set out theblueprint from which the project was assembled.SHADA therefore got almost exactly what theyhad originally wanted, and were the most active,and demanding, participant.

9

Maritime Housing Association, as a partner inTHRP, approached JRF for action researchfunding, which would provide some degree oftechnical support, and at the same time, monitorand review the effectiveness of this jointcommissioning partnership. Instead, they wereoffered a place in this project, where they becameactive participants, and made some use of theopportunity for specialist support.

Focus Housing Group, the accountable body inthe Aston SRB programme, approached JRF forresearch funding to evaluate, and promote, its re-alignment as a social investment agency – that is,a social landlord which recognises it has to be anactive partner in the generation of successfulcommunities, wherever it works. Instead, theywere offered a place in this project, specificallyrelated to the Aston SRB. They were active in theinformation exchanges and seminars, but the non-housing focus of their SRB programme meant thatthe project had less to offer them.

YRP were brought into the project because JRFand JRHT were already involved in thepartnership, both in supporting communitydevelopment, and as a developer of new socialhousing. The York programme was the mostadvanced, and was already looking to its exitstrategy during the time-scale of the project.Nonetheless staff from their Acomb Advice Shopbecame active participants, particularly in relationto community and economic development issues.

Who else they involved

Most of the project business was conducted withthe organisations which first made contact withJRF. However, those who participated most fullyalso drew in their own local partners. BothSHADA and Maritime Housing Authority broughtalong staff from their partner local authorities andhousing associations, to project activities at alllevels. Both YRP and Focus involved residentsin the project visits to their programmes.

This wider engagement was seen as particularlyimportant by SHADA, because it reinforced theircapacity to involve their partners in reviewingboth strategic and operational aspects of theirprogramme. Although these reviews were notalways successful in practice – for example, theircommunity lettings proposal fell foul of financial

pressures from the costs of Bed & Breakfastaccommodation for homeless families – they didestablish a basis of common understanding whichimproved the quality of these relationships.

Diverse subjects and interest atdifferent levels

Much of the content of the project wasdetermined by the participants. They not onlyidentified subjects for scrutiny or support, butthey also defined what sort of forum was mostappropriate for each. This led to a wide anddiverse range of subjects being examined.

It also meant that the project providedopportunities for staff at different levels to engagein the process. Specifically, the visits and strategymeetings were predominantly attended by seniorstaff and operational managers, whereas theinformation exchanges were attended byoperational managers and service delivery staff.The seminars were attended by managers andtechnical staff.

The senior staff attending the visits and strategymeetings would probably have found time for thistype of review in any event, although probablynot with such different partners. However, theproject also provided opportunities, rarelyafforded to service delivery staff, to review theiractivities with their peers in other programmes.In the information exchanges, this includedhaving to make short presentations on thepurpose and content of their activities, and henceexamine their own work more reflectively thanwould commonly be expected of them.

Lessons

In the world of social housing and regeneration,keeping in touch is not that difficult. Theproliferation of national and regional conferences,and subject-based seminars, provide a well-established mechanism for finding out what isgoing on. In response to the ‘Best Value’ regime,benchmarking clubs and arrangements like themare becoming increasingly common as a methodof reviewing performance among groups oforganisations with similar characteristics.

Process

10


This project was unusual in that the fourprogrammes which participated in it were, on theface of it, quite dissimilar. What it offered themwas a much more intense and multi-layeredopportunity for scrutiny and support than isavailable through conferences, seminars andclubs. The following characteristics were criticalin determining the benefits of the project:

• Small scale: by sticking to only fourprogrammes, there was time for everyone tohave their say as an active participant. No onewas just a listener, and everyone could reflecton their own work, as well as offering criticalcommentary on that of the others.

• Consistent attendance: the same core peopleattended at the various levels, and soonestablished a familiarity with each other’sprogrammes, so that a body of commonknowledge could be called up by shorthand.Operational managers in particular tended toget to most sessions, and became increasinglyable to provide valuable oblique observationson each other’s work.

• First-hand knowledge: the visits to each of theprogrammes not only fleshed out the host’sown description, they also often allowedvisitors to raise challenging questions about thedirection of the host programme.

• Multi-layered involvement: the opportunity forstaff at all levels both to scrutinise, and be thesubject of scrutiny, meant that the lessons ofmutual review could go directly into theappropriate part of the organisation, ratherthan being filtered (with the risk of distortionor dilution) through an internal hierarchy.

• Long time-scale: there were problems inpooling between programmes which were notonly of different types, but also at differentstages in their own time-scales. However, byrunning the project over a year and a half, theparticipants were able both to develop thequality of their exchanges, and to anticipatefuture issues in the light of other participants’experiences.

• Specialist support: the availability of specialistsupport within the project meant that theseminars and information exchanges could bebetter equipped. This support was also usedsingularly within programmes, where itcemented the value to them of participation inthe project.

What this project shows is that whatever thebenefits of sending senior staff to conferences, orparticipating in computerised benchmarkingclubs, when organisations take on testinginterventions they can improve the quality andeffectiveness of what they are doing by setting upsimilar collaborative arrangements. The featuresset out above, particularly those which exposestaff at all levels to peer review, will widenperspectives and expand the range of practicalideas.

11

4

Mixed and flexible tenure

What is it?

Mixed and flexible tenure is a two-prongedapproach to provision on social housing estates.On the one hand, it provides for tenants, sharedowners and outright owners living side by side insimilar properties, so that there is no distinctionbetween the different tenures in terms of size,style, location or environment. On the otherhand, it provides the opportunity to all residentsto increase or decrease their equity interest intheir home.

The ability to offer full flexibility is normallyconstrained by funding regimes which unwiselyclassify subsidy as being only for rented, sharedownership or low-cost home ownership schemes,without the opportunity to switch the resultantproperties between the distinct tenures.

Why does it matter?

The interest in mixed and flexible tenure aroseout of the adverse effects of concentrations ofpoverty on social housing estates. A key purposeis to prevent social housing becoming stigmatisedas being exclusively for unemployed, poor,single-parent households, since this stigmaimpacts on the life chances of all who live there.Tenure diversity promotes economically diversecommunities with specific benefits in terms of:

• support for local trade and services;• employment role models for children;• retention of economically successful

households;• residents being economically engaged with the

success of the area.

Interventions: Part 1 – The JosephRowntree Foundation menu

For residents it may offer the following directbenefits:

• avoiding unnecessary moves as householdprosperity changes – up as well as down;

• access to the asset value of the home;• reducing the risks of mortgage arrears and

repossession;• stabilising household outgoings, by making

mortgage payments which tend to move at orbelow inflation, rather than rent paymentswhich tend to move above inflation.

For the social landlord it may offer:

• more homes for the same subsidy – the morethat residents pay towards equity stakes, themore the subsidy can be stretched;

• surpluses for the landlord – residents tend tostaircase up (add to the landlord’s funds) whenprices are rising, and staircase down (draw onthe landlord’s funds) when prices are falling orstatic.

How does it work?

The mixed tenure aspect is achieved bycombining an allocation of funds for sharedownership with an allocation for rented housingwithin the same scheme. It is up to thedeveloping social landlord to resist siren calls forhigh walls and security gates around the sharedownership. It is precisely the creation of enclaveswhich creates social division and depressesvalues. Pepperpotting is fundamental to mixedtenure. Under present funding rules, the sharedownership option can only be offered withinstock built for that purpose, unless providedwholly from within the registered social landlord’sown resources.

12


The flexible tenure aspect is achieved by twomeans. First, by ensuring that the leasedocumentation provides for staircasing down.Second, by the registered social landlordproviding a float for the flexible tenure fund. Inpractice, receipts from staircasing up in buoyantmarkets tend to be greater than payments tostaircasing down in depressed markets. As aresult, the fund can expect to be in surplus over aperiod of years. JRHT found in the 10-year periodto 1996 that proceeds from staircasing up (net ofrepaid social housing grant and developmentloans) exceeded the costs of staircasing down by£23,000.

Application within the project

Tranmere and Aston

The programmes in Tranmere and Aston do notinvolve any new estates. They are both engagedin existing mixed tenure communities, whereproperty values are very low, and there is notmuch call for shared ownership. Access toownership is restricted by low incomes andlimited credit opportunities, rather than by highhouse prices. The tenure issues in theseprogrammes were more focused on povertyamong owner-occupiers, particularly olderowners, leading to deterioration in the stock, andhence in values and perceptions across the area.However, in Tranmere some new sharedownership houses were built, and were verypopular.

York

Within the new housing developments of theYork programme, JRHT is one of the developmentpartners. As with its other estates, it will beoperating mixed and flexible tenure. There isalso an element of mixed social ownership,including some self-build housing.

Stepney

In Stepney, the vast bulk of the redevelopment isbeing provided as rented housing.

The partner registered social landlords havecosted shared ownership, and found that withtheir high values, it is harder to make viable in

flats than houses. This is because although flatshave relatively lower values, the additionalservice charge element which they attract makesthe monthly payments too expensive. There isfurther concern in Stepney that, although a smallamount has been done, in general, those whocould afford shared ownership here are likely tochoose outright ownership at lower cost in olderhousing in the adjoining boroughs to the east.

The Stepney sites include an area set aside forprivate sector housing – with the possibility ofsome shared ownership within it. At the time ofthe project, the developer was insisting oncreating an enclave with strict perimeter security.

Implications

Mixed tenure

Mixed tenure is a response to concentrations ofpoverty on social housing estates. Its promotionraises the following issues:

• Would it be better for social landlords to stopbuilding estates and simply purchasepepperpotted properties (new as well asexisting)?

• Private sector developers assume that valueswill be lowered by pepperpotting, even thoughtheir preferred enclaves and stigma perpetuateoverall damping of values. Can they bepersuaded to engage in integrateddevelopments?

• The social housing grant funding regimeidentifies rented and shared ownershipproperties as separate entities, but at the sametime promotes moves to owner-occupation fortenants who can afford it. What can be doneto achieve an internally consistent fundingregime?

Flexible tenure

Flexible tenure is a response to changinghousehold incomes and aspirations, designedboth to protect those with falling incomes, and toretain those with rising incomes. Its promotionraises the following issues:

• Within the social housing grant regime flexibletenure can only be contemplated in sharedownership properties. If it is so helpful in

13

underpinning stable communities, how can itbe extended to rented housing?

• The success of the JRHT scheme may be areflection of the relative stability of the localhousing market, which has been unaffected bywider swings seen elsewhere in the countryover the same period.

• The application in areas of very high values islimited both because they generate high costs,and because eligible households may be ableto get very much more for their money inadjoining areas.

• In very low value areas, any form of sharedownership is of limited use, because thebottom rung of the owner-occupied propertyladder is so close to the ground.

Community lettings

What is it?

For the purposes of this project the term‘community lettings’ has been used to describeany lettings system which sets out to foster asuccessful community by taking account ofapplicants’ interest in the area as a whole, as wellas their interest in, or need for, the particularavailable property. There may be a role forexisting residents in the design or delivery of thesystem.

Why does it matter?

Lettings systems which match the applicants withgreatest need to the size of availableaccommodation, without taking other factors intoaccount, have resulted in concentrations of lowincome, benefit-dependent households, with highchild to adult ratios, and few employed rolemodels. This is particularly so in newdevelopments, where there is no establishedcommunity to leaven the impact of newcomers.

There are clear consequences for the householdsthemselves when communities fail. There arealso consequences for their landlords, and for thefull range of other service providers – social aswell as commercial. Unsuccessful communitiesare not only painful for the residents, they arealso expensive. It is not argued that lettingspolicies are the determinant of success or failure,but depending on their scope, priorities and

methods they can contribute positively, ornegatively.

Within the world of social housing there isongoing debate about the characteristics ofsuccessful communities. This has given rise topropositions about communities which arevariously balanced, mixed, stable, or diverse.Alongside these characteristics, a parallel range ofallocation techniques have been developed topromote the favoured approach. Within theproject a more simple proposition has beenadopted, namely, that communities are successfulwhen more people want to join than want toleave; and that this is promoted by ensuring alevel of interest in the area as a whole, not bysecuring a particular demographic profile.

The recent interest in choice-based lettingshappened after the project. The systems currentlybeing piloted rely on applicants deciding howthey themselves want to make the trade-offbetween urgency and preference, rather thanlandlords trying to impose it on the basis ofimmediate property availability and needsassessment. This new and different approach,while shifting the initiative onto the applicant, isnonetheless working towards the same overallobjective as the programmes in the project,namely, to create successful communities.

How does it work?

There are two principal ways of ensuring thatlettings reflect interest in the area, and withineach of them, a wide range of practical variations.Broadly speaking, one way is for the landlord tomeasure interest as part of the applicationprocess; the other way is for the applicants todemonstrate their interest by the choices theymake.

With the first way, applicants have to provideinformation which shows the ways in which thearea matters to them. This is likely to covermatters such as:

• care relationships: both caring and cared for,and both regular and intermittent care;

• educational links;• employment links: particularly for low paid

employment, where minimising travel costsmakes significant differences to household

Interventions: Part 1

14


incomes, and for key workers in high valueareas;

• voluntary activity and social links.

This information can be used at any of the fourkey stages in the lettings process, such as:

• the gateway: where all applicants, or a setproportion of them, have to have at least oneof these points of interest;

• the category: where there is a reserved sectionof lettings for applicants with these points ofinterest;

• the criteria: where all applicants are scored onthese matters as well as on needs;

• the tie breaker: where points of interest areused to distinguish between applicants withotherwise equal needs priorities.

This first way of reflecting interest in the areanecessarily involves setting up a detailed androbust system, which can be incorporated into aneeds-based system.

The second way avoids the need to makeassessments of how much interest any applicanthas in the area (and possibly weighting betweendifferent levels of interest). Instead, it puts theonus on applicants to express their own level ofinterest. There are two main ways in which thiscan be done:

• prioritising locations: where applicants arerequired to put a number of small tightlydefined locations in priority order, and lettingsare made to the applicants with greatest needin their first choice locations;

• open bidding by applicants: where applicantsapply, as they choose, for vacancies as theyarise, and offers are made to the greatest need,or longest waiting, applicant who expresses adirect interest in that property – in otherwords, properties are selected by applicants,not allocated by the landlord.


Tranmere

Although there are relatively few new housesbeing built in the Tranmere programme, theexisting residents, who are predominantly low-income owner-occupiers, were concerned aboutthe impact of these lettings. A local lettingspolicy was agreed between the partners,

including The Housing Corporation, for the 70 orso new lettings in the first phase. Its mainfeatures are:

• it operates outside the main lettings system;• it requires local connection through residence,

contact or employment. Once these entrycriteria are satisfied, allocations are based onneed;

• it is advertised through local shops andresidents’ groups;

• applicants come to a pre-allocation meetingwhich sets out the tone and standardsexpected, and gives information about localservices. It includes short presentations fromthe housing associations, residents, and thepolice;

• applicants who remain interested are requiredto sign an authorisation for references andchecks;

• successful applicants have to attend aninduction meeting with the landlord and otherresidents.

The system is popular with both residents andapplicants. It is increasing the desirability of newtenancies, as well as assuaging residents’ fears bygiving them a role (but not a determining say) inselection. New tenancies last well. There hasbeen only one re-let in two-and-a-half years, in anarea which is otherwise increasingly unstable.The system had not yet been monitored forapplicants withdrawing in the face of scrutiny,equal opportunities, or help with homelessness.

Aston

The Aston programme was non-capital, and didnot involve any new development, and hence nonew lettings.

York

JRHT were considering adapting the communitylettings system they operate on other estates fortheir small new development as part of the SRBprogramme. Under their system, residents areinvolved in deciding a proportion of the lettingsin accordance with agreed criteria. The intentionwas to keep the resulting household profileswithin locally agreed proportions for single-parenthouseholds, adult/child ratios, and benefit-

15

dependent households. Details had not beencompleted while the project was running.

Stepney

SHADA set up a series of seminars, facilitated bythe project, with the local authority and externalpartners. The seminars reviewed the impact oflettings based exclusively on applicants’ currenthousing needs, and alternatives. The localauthority system requires applicants to prioritiseareas, based on a large number of small locations.Because of the relatively large amount ofrebuilding, it is difficult to know how farapplicants were expressing an interest in the area,and how much of an interest in specific newproperties.

After the objectives of community lettings hadbeen agreed, the scheme was not finalisedbecause of the local authority’s pressing need todeal with the costs of rising homelessness. In theevent, SHADA’s rolling programme of demolitionand replacement, combined with a newprogramme on an adjoining estate, means thatmost new lettings are being used for decants forpeople wanting to stay in the area.

Implications

The experience of community lettings within theproject raises the following issues:

The North–South divide• The problems of rationing in areas of high

demand, and marketing in areas of lowdemand may give rise to different methods butthey are both fundamentally concerned withsupporting successful communities.

Negotiating new policies• It is relatively easy to negotiate community

lettings in exceptional circumstances, it is moredifficult to make them routine.

• Clarifying the overall purpose of the housingorganisation, as supporting successfulcommunities, makes it much easier to developan organisation-wide approach.

• Local authority support depends on theprogrammes recognising that they have similarproblems and similar objectives.

• The Housing Corporation is likely to acceptpolicies which have been agreed with localauthorities.

• Negotiating with other local residents (non-social housing) is unusual, but may be crucialto successful community integration.

• Residents may have an input to policy andprocess, but not to selection.

Creating new systems• Successful communities are not necessarily

balanced.• Lettings depend on the context of social

housing. Factors such as tenure mix,pepperpotting, scale and the strength ofadjoining non-social tenures all affect theoverall community and the role of lettingswithin it.

• Will community lettings simply cream off easyapplicants and disadvantage adjoining areas?Or can the aims of improving choice, andraising expectations, be applied across theboard?

• Increasing the proportion of economicallyactive residents may be done by mixed tenurerather than by lettings.

• Community lettings identify applicants whohave an interest outside their front door –people who do not just want to live in aparticular house/flat, but also in a particularstreet/estate/block. This attachment to place islikely to reflect work links, education links,voluntary activity links, carer links or familyand friendship links.

• The lettings process, and particularly theinvolvement of residents in pre-lettingsbriefings to make clear the expectations, maybe as significant as the lettings criteria insupporting successful communities.

Measuring impacts• A successful community is a popular one; the

simplest measure of success is, do people wantto live here?

• Popularity will also show in routinely collectedhousing management information, particularlydata associated with lettings (refusal rates,transfer off requests, voids turnaround times,cost of works prior to relet), and also in moregeneral management information (arrearslevels, complaints, vandalism and graffiti costs,rechargeable repairs).

• If we allocate in support of choice, who willlive in the properties no one chooses, the


16


weakest or the worst (however that might bejudged)?

Lifetime homes

What is it?

The lifetime homes standards are a set of designcriteria which incorporate the features needed tomake life easier for visitors with restrictedmobility, and make future adaptations easier forresidents if their own mobility is impaired.

They are criteria which can be applied to newbuild schemes at very low additional initial cost –a matter of a few hundred pounds per home.They include features which are available fromthe start, such as level access, adequate door andhall widths, and accessible switches, sockets andservice controls. They also include preparationfor future adaptations, such as walls strongenough for handrails or stairlifts, and space andservice connections for a ground floor shower.

Why does it matter?

The lifetime homes standards help ensure that thehome is flexible, adaptable and equally accessibleto households with or without those currentlywith disabilities. They add comfort, convenienceand safety. They meet the changing needs ofresidents, either throughout one family’s lifetime,or through a succession of residents with varyingneeds. They are ordinary homes for peoplecoping with the ordinary difficulties of life,without having to move home when disabilityarises.

How does it work?

There are 16 standards covering access, internalarrangements, services and fixtures and fittings,which can be incorporated in the design brief fornew work, and adapted for modernisation work.The majority of them are designated as essentialor recommended within The HousingCorporation’s Scheme Development Standards.Since they were introduced, the BuildingRegulations have been enhanced in therequirements for mobility access.


In Tranmere and Stepney, new developments arebuilt to Housing Corporation essential standards.

There is no new build in the Aston programme.

In York the JRHT developments are to lifetimehomes standards, but the other registered sociallandlords are building to Housing Corporationessential standards.

Implications

The experience of lifetime homes within theproject raises the following issues:

• despite the relatively low initial costs, the fullstandard will only be specified where thedeveloper has a strong cultural commitment toprioritising the long-term interests of residents;

• the enhanced Building Regulations standardhas raised the threshold of normal practice,and probably reduced the profile of this issue;

• there is limited application in practice toexisting buildings.

Community development work

What is it?

In the project, this has been taken to mean thedirect promotion, and support of, community-based actions and organisations, within thecontext of regeneration programmes.

Why does it matter?

Housing-based regeneration has historically beenconcentrated on bricks and mortar – either aswholesale replacement of dilapidated stock, orremodelling existing stock to tackle perceiveddefects in condition, facilities, appearance orexternal arrangements. Until very recently,housing regeneration programmes have alwaysbeen capital-led, and this remains predominantlythe case.

Regardless of the need for re-investment in thehousing stock, the reasons for community declineare more complex than simply the condition ofthe bricks and mortar. The process of attrition

17

which deprived communities go through meansthat reinvestment is likely to be needed across amuch wider range of concerns than just thehouses. Regeneration programmes whichconcentrate only on stock condition can beexpected to fail. By the same token, programmeswhich concentrate only on the quality of otherservices or functions, and ignore the investmentneeds of the properties, can also be expected tofail.

Unless residents can be offered some element ofownership in relation to the services beingprovided, the benefits of regeneration will beshort-lived. However, their capacity to move intosuch opportunities for greater participation orownership cannot be taken for granted.Community development can assist in theprocesses of mutual support, greaterneighbourliness, which enhances the quality oflife, and the realisation of opportunities forresident involvement in the management process.The proposition being tested here is that thesebenefits will only happen when this is identifiedas a specific, and fundamental, part of theregeneration process.

How does it work?

There are two essential strands. One, that thecommunity development function is separatelyidentified and supported within the regenerationprogramme. The other, that the programmecontains real opportunities for residents toexercise decision-making powers in relation tothe programme, or at least some aspects of it.


Tranmere

The Tranmere programme includes extensive non-housing objectives and projects. It employs acommunity development officer and offers twoNew Deal placements for assistants. Theprogramme involves residents’ training, improvingand coordinating local services, working withschools, construction training opportunities, andenvironmental improvements. The Tranmereprogramme is a signposting agency to other localservices and initiatives. It distributes a newsletterto 2,500 local residents.

Aston

Unlike the other programmes, Aston is centred oncapacity building, and has no new capitalelement. One of the main strands of theprogramme is the promotion of communitygovernance skills, both through trainingopportunities, and through support for emerginglocal organisations. Other strands, such as thedevelopment of integrated advice and supportservices, and the creation of training andemployment opportunities, have a direct impacton the capacity of individuals, and hence thepotential for community-based actions.

York

The York programme was adopted withoutsignificant prior community involvement. ACommunity Forum was set up as part of theprogramme, to act as the main consultative body,and to appoint a community representative to theRegeneration Partnership Board. JRF assisted inthe early days in developing the CommunityForum, and identifying its emerging concerns.

The programme contained a substantialcommunity fund (£350,000) to be administered bythe Community Forum. Although theRegeneration Partnership has been focusedmainly on job creation, employment and housing,the community fund has provided a powerfulincentive for residents to participate. They havebeen able to develop a clear understanding oflocal interests and priorities, as well as acquiringsubstantial skills in setting up and running anaccountable system for distributing the fund, andensuring maximum leverage. The management ofthe community fund has been the main vehiclefor community development.

Stepney

In Stepney, community development workerswere brought in only after the programme hadbeen running for three years. They had juststarted at the time of this project. Their work wasdeveloping along three lines. One, generalcommunity development. Two, support forinitiatives connected with the management of thenew housing (this includes schemes such as toolshare and garden use, and residents trained toprovide a welcome, introductions, and support for


18


new tenants). Three, economic issues such asaccess to employment opportunities, workspaceprovision, and employment training andprovision.

Implications

The experience of community developmentwithin the project raises the following issues:

• the classic community development model –namely, that its purpose is solely to respond towhat the community itself defines andproposes – does not keep pace with thedynamic set up by regeneration interventions;

• the range of activities around whichcommunity development can coalesce will beconstrained by the way the regenerationprogramme has been formulated;

• the many agencies of regeneration each havetheir own agenda which impacts on communityoptions;

• the way these agencies operate has an impacton whether their activities advance or holdback community development;

• the capacity of regeneration agencies toadvance community development depends ontheir willingness to prioritise it by engagingwith residents to determine what is done;

• regeneration budgets need to include resourceswhich allow for resident-determined prioritiesto be incorporated – this is not simply aboutcapital spend, it also affects ongoingprogramme and product management;

• disparate local groups may weld together inresponse to external threats, which mayinclude the regeneration agency itself! (theogre model of community development);

• for residents to be involved in formulatingregeneration programmes, communitydevelopment work is needed many years inadvance;

• however, this may be less important thanresidents having direct control over specificbudgets and functions within the programme.

Reflections on the menu

This part of the project drew on the experience ofJRHT as an owner, manager and developer ofsocial housing, as well as lessons learnt in a muchwider arena through work funded by JRF. Mostof JRHT’s experience is with new estatedevelopments, and the long-term management ofwhole estates, and the ideas tested here, were oflimited application outside of the estate model.

It is clear from the experience in Stepney thateven a willing local authority has difficultyprioritising community strength through lettings,when under extreme pressure in tacklinghomelessness, and managing the excessive costsof bed and breakfast accommodation. Theregeneration programme there was able tosupport community links through extensivedecants, rather than by adopting communitylettings. This programme has also suffered fromthe high land costs which substantially reduce thepotential for mixed tenure. In this particularsituation a programme to improve educationalachievement and, through it, access toemployment in the well-heeled immediatelyadjoining locations, may be more effective thanthe housing programme, which was nonethelessnecessary because of the state of the housingstock.

In many ways Stepney had more potential overlapwith the JRF menu than any of the other threeprogrammes, because it was centred on a housingestate. The other three programmes all operatedin much larger, more diverse areas in which theregeneration programme had only a small impacton local social and economic activity. Neithermixed and flexible tenure, nor lifetime homes,were particularly significant in any of theseprogrammes – although Tranmere were keen tosee an equity release model developed for low-income owner-occupiers. However, bothcommunity lettings and community developmentwere seen as potent in all programmes – eventhough the ways they were approached, and thedegree of priority they were given, varied widely.

19

5Interventions:Part 2 – Participants’ issues

The contract between JRF and the fourparticipating programmes offered support inresponding to issues identified by theparticipants, in return for testing the originalmenu. The issues which were raised fell into twogroups. First, a set of common issues, which allfour programmes wanted to examine, and did sotogether. Second, a series of singular issuesraised by only one of the programmes.

The common issues were:

• economic development• partnership working• the role of housing providers.

The singular issues were:

• anti-poverty strategies• accountability to the community• mutual aid.

Economic development

The core business of the main participants ishousing. However, they recognised that simplyproviding good quality housing is not enough tosecure successful communities. Hence, manynon-housing angles have been pursued within thefour programmes – sometimes as directinterventions, sometimes by tagging onto otherpeople’s initiatives.

Poverty is the gateway to social housing, but itdoes not follow that social housing is the solutionto poverty. In relation to poverty, the followingissues emerged:

• How can the programmes work to reduce theexport of the limited cash which residentshave?

• How can the programmes help residents tobecome economically active, and what othersupport do they need?

• How can the programmes help residents gain afoothold in surrounding areas which areeconomically more active?

• Can housing regeneration programmes beeffective in taking on economic developmentfunctions? Or are they better left to others?

Not surprisingly, the programmes did not reachdefinitive answers to any of these questions.However, they did identify some limiting factorsas well as some appropriate strategies.

The limiting factors included:

• Employment is not the answer to all poverty.Many people will be prevented from turning towork because of age, illness or dependants.Anti-poverty actions, including work on benefittake-up, fuel saving improvements bylandlords, and the like, are needed as well.

• The informal economy may be an obstacle toemployment where it produces greaterimmediate net incomes – although thisbecomes less likely with people who are 40+(and have an eye to their income inretirement).

• Long-term change will be critically dependenton support and interventions which helpyoungsters to believe that their lives can bedifferent.

• Local interventions, no matter how carefullyplanned, may be swept aside by macro-economic events.

20


The appropriate strategies included:

Appearance

• Run-down areas need environmentalimprovements (including facelifts and cosmeticworks) to make them attractive to residentsand investors.

• Use the summer to organise events which putcolour and fun and a sense of optimism on thestreets, and counteract the grey faces.

Employment

• In Aston, proposed new developments whichcreate jobs may be doing so at the expense ofexisting jobs. The more specialist or skilledthe new jobs are, the more likely they are torely on imported labour, and offer minimalopportunities even to a retrained localworkforce.

• In York, none of the ex-employees of thedisused carriage works were re-employedwhen it re-opened. The Cinderella activitywithin the total programme (the Acomb AdviceShop) has been much more effective insupporting the employment potential ofresidents.

• The fear or expectation of racism or sexism inthe workplace inhibits people from seekingwork outside their own area. This can betackled both by the promotion of localeconomic opportunity, and by creating directlinks with external employers.

• In Stepney, work to improve access to jobs inadjoining areas (particularly Docklands and theCity) needs to be coordinated with othergroups, because employers want to manageone placement relationship, not several.Training opportunities for residents need to bespecifically matched with employers’ needs.Employers need to be persuaded to recognisethe benefit to their businesses of Stepneyceasing to be a poverty pocket, and supporttraining for employment initiatives byguaranteeing interviews to course participants.

• In Stepney, housing-related projects, such asthe Home Demonstrator and Gardeningprojects, build confidence and skills inparticipants. Similarly many of the small-scaleprojects in Aston develop personal skills as apreliminary to access to employment.

Trading

• In Tranmere, an over-supply of shops (old andempty) may have to be dealt with by reducingtheir numbers, by conversion to other uses.Assessing the retail capacity of the area isessential if community businesses are tosucceed when the private and public sectorshave failed in the same location.

• Shops in the proposed new retail park in Astonmay mean less trade for existing corner shops.Alternatively, new buyers coming into the areamay be tempted to also visit existing shops.

• Similarly in Stepney, where SHADA activelysupports local traders, there are too many localshops for local needs. Outside shoppers couldonly be drawn in by securing a new majorretail attraction, which would almost certainlyundermine the viability of existing shops.

Retention

• The area covered by the Stepney programmehas very low incomes, but abuts areas of veryhigh incomes. Land prices, and house prices(as long as they are not on Council estates) arevery high. There is little intermediate housing,and local people who prosper are likely tomove away from the area. Various housingprovision and management strategies attemptto counter this effect, such as, mixed tenureand community lettings.

• In Tranmere, new skilled employment in therevitalised shipyard is likely to go to peoplefrom outside the area. Economic benefits willonly flow into the area if the programmesucceeds in its attempts to reverse the potentialdecline of local older terraced housing at thebottom of the owner-occupied ladder.

21

Partnership working

While partnership working was a common issue,the four programmes had very differentexperiences. The most startling differences are inrelation to the local authority, shown in Table 2.

In York the partnership was formal, with acommitment to joint working, but no separatebody set up to implement the programme. Thelocal authority ran the core part of the programme– the land reclamation with English Partnerships,the redevelopment of the industrial works site,and the promotion of new investmentopportunities for employers. The peripheral partsof the programme – the new housingdevelopment, the advice centre, and thecommunity fund – operated virtually asautonomous satellites.

In Tranmere the partnership was a formalcontract between the local authority, the twoselected housing associations, and The HousingCorporation. Although no separate body wasconstituted to implement the programme,seconded staff operated under a separate tradingbanner, from independent local offices, all fundedby the housing associations.

In Aston the partnership was a formal contractbetween local organisations. Focus HousingGroup was the accountable body, and providedthe resources to service the partnership.However, it had no role in directing thecontributions of the various, generally muchsmaller, local projects within the partnership. Thelocal authority had no role.

In Stepney the local authority set SHADA up as anindependently constituted body to manage this

SRB programme. As the programme is mainlyconcerned with the regeneration of the localauthority’s own housing stock, it remains a closeworking partner.

Despite these differences, in relation topartnerships the following common issuesemerged:

• Piggy in the middle: regeneration programmesface in two directions. On the one hand, theyhave to deal with superior, external partnerswho are more powerful and more remote. Onthe other hand, they deal with weaker localpartners. They need to maintain credibility andeffectiveness with both groups, by ensuringinternal openness and consistency. They needto be able to act as both external championand internal neighbourhood strategists, withoutseparating themselves from their small localpartners.

• Commercial acumen: social interventionorganisations deal most comfortably with theirown kind. Nonetheless, to be effective theyare likely to have to engage with commercialpartners as well. They need to ensure thatthey have the skills needed to understand andcommunicate with commercial partners.

• Building trust through understanding: most ofthe four programmes had to work within thecontext of a plethora of previous and currentinterventions. From the outset, work is neededto understand who else is doing, or trying todo, what; and how the new programme cansupport, rather than undermine, their efforts.Smaller agencies are particularly sensitive tothreats to their autonomy or functions.Commonly, much energy, particularly at officerlevel, is expended on mistrust and territorialdefence. Regeneration agencies need to planfor meeting these concerns, and havingsomething to offer existing organisations.

The role of housing providers

All four programmes have a job to do within alimited life, determined by their fundingtimetable. None of the programmes are seekingto replicate themselves on a permanent basis, andthere was general support for programmes havinga beginning, a middle and an end. However, inall cases, existing partner organisations, andseparate projects created within the programmes


Table 2: Partnership working in relation to the localauthority

Programme

Local authority roles York Tranmere Aston Stepney

Programme initiatorProgramme co-initiatorCo-funderControllerService provider

22


will continue, which raised the following issuesaround the role of housing organisations:

• Social housing providers are there for theduration. Their interest in regeneration is notsimply about the immediate programmeconcerns, and certainly not simply about thecondition of their stock. They need to besatisfied that the areas within which theyoperate have a future.

• Although their core business is the provisionand management of housing, they can onlyexpect to survive in areas of economic decline,by engaging in other activities, and with otheragencies, to secure a broader basis of financialstability than the mere availability of HousingBenefit.

• The private sector mantra of ‘location, location,location’ is more about economic critical massthan about style or condition. Social landlordsin regeneration programmes need to ensurethat the programme embraces the creation andsustenance of economically successfulcommunities.

Anti-poverty strategies

In Stepney, SHADA hosted an anti-poverty groupwith participation from housing partners toreview ways in which residents’ living costs couldbe minimised. The design brief for new andrehabilitated housing already included highstandards on energy efficiency and insulation.The anti-poverty group initiated the followingadditional projects:

• affordable water calculations to enableresidents to be given stark advice on the costsof different ways of using the supply;

• affordable water negotiations with alternativesuppliers;

• the Home Demonstrator project in whichresidents were trained to give their newneighbours detailed information on themanagement of their homes, and particularlythe control of the heating systems;

• the Gardening project in which residents getaccess to tools and advice, to help them usetheir gardens for growing food;

• a review of the security provisions provided bythe landlords, and hence reducing theinsurance costs to residents.

Accountability to the community

In Tranmere, the project originally had only athree-year life – although it is expected tocontinue. There was concern that the work it haddone in securing better coordination of serviceswould fizzle out. Funding was therefore obtainedfor a programme of working with residents andservice providers, to set up a process of regularscrutiny, to introduce direct local accountability.

The Tranmere Accountability Project is thepractical manifestation of this concept. It involvesbuilding community capacity and increasing localaccountability through a partnership of residentsand service providers. This will operate throughquarterly reviews of the services which residentsprioritise. All partners will sign up to aframework agreement specifying their practicalcommitments.

Mutual aid

The mutual aid concept is that in successfulcommunities residents are alert to each other’sneeds. In Stepney, a mutual aid project wasadopted in which residents were invited to adopta voluntary code of mutual respect, recognitionand aid. This was introduced by the originatorsof the scheme, Lemos and Crane, who providedinitial training.

23

6

The focus of central government investment inregeneration has shifted in the past 10 years.Although capital works programmes continue,they are no longer simply designed to addressphysical conditions of local neglect and underinvestment. Bricks and mortar still matter tocentral policy makers, but only to the extent thatthey are attached to, support, or develop the localeconomy, social organisation and infrastructure.

Social landlords are in for the duration. Theycannot afford to stand by while the communitiesthey serve suffer the ravages of economic decline.Their capacity for effective intervention will beaffected not only by their ability to draw inresources, but also by the effectiveness of theirpartnerships with residents, local authorities andother social and commercial suppliers.

Although not all regeneration programmes arecapital-led, many still are. Those responsible fordeveloping and implementing capital programmesnow have to deal with complex objectives. Theyhave to examine, sift, adapt and apply a range ofparallel initiatives which will both enhance andunderpin the capital programmes.

Not every initiative works in every regenerationprogramme. Although some are fundamental, theway they need to be constructed and applied willvary from programme to programme. Programmemanagers need to be alert to the experience ofothers, and to ensure that their delivery staff haveaccess to their peers in other programmes.

Regeneration work which is focused in socialhousing provision cannot expect to be sustaining,unless it addresses the issues of:

• diversity: supporting a range of options forresidents in property types, tenure andownership – through pepperpotted mixedtenure and mixed ownership developments;

Conclusion

• flexibility: providing routes for residents toretain their place in the community as theirlives and opportunities expand and contract –both through options to acquire, expand andcontract equity stakes, and through readilyadaptable homes which can meet changingphysical needs;

• attachment: ensuring that new residents comewith an interest in the area as a whole, not justin the facilities of a single property – whetherthrough community lettings schemes, or, morerecently, choice-based lettings systems;

• community development: strengthening andenhancing residents’ capacity to assert theirown priorities; to develop solutions both aspartners and on their own; and, to hold serviceproviders to account;

• economic development: working often inpartnership with other lead agencies to reducethe export of limited local resources; to assistin expanding economic activity; and, to helpresidents gain footholds in surrounding areaswhich are economically more active;

• partnership working: recognising first andforemost the central role of residents asparticipants in defining problems and priorities,developing solutions, and contributing toimplementation; and second, recognising theplace that social housing providers playalongside other social and commercial agenciesin securing coordinated action;

• learning from others: engaging at servicedelivery level, as well as strategic level, withstaff in other regeneration programmes toreview the effectiveness of detailedinterventions and expand the options.

Incorporating these fundamental elements in anyregeneration programme will require not only arange of specific projects, but also, and morecritically, a way of working which can adapt toemerging ideas, opportunities and constraints.

because it works - jrf

Documents