Chapter 4 - Achieving sustainable outcomes
Andy von Bradsky, PRP
Previous sections have focused on best practice drawn from 40 years of collective experience - and there is no shortage of good examples of successful regeneration to examine in the many government-led initiatives over that period.
It was recognised through most of this period that private and public sector had to work together in partnership for sustainable outcomes and that government intervention in the form of policy direction, subsidy and incentive was required to regenerate our estates. The challenge for policy makers now is how to deliver the equivalent outcomes - mixed, sustainable communities, genuine options for existing residents, attractive built environments and economic regeneration - all with low or no public investment.
This is particularly challenging in the context of escalating housing costs in London, where even sub-market and shared ownership tenures are out of reach for many, and estate regeneration is perceived as displacing existing communities for private gain.
This concluding section suggests what a successful outcome should look like, the challenges for policy-makers and the potential conflicts in current policy that might mitigate against these objectives.
To read the full Chapter please download the report.
It was recognised through most of this period that private and public sector had to work together in partnership for sustainable outcomes and that government intervention in the form of policy direction, subsidy and incentive was required to regenerate our estates. The challenge for policy makers now is how to deliver the equivalent outcomes - mixed, sustainable communities, genuine options for existing residents, attractive built environments and economic regeneration - all with low or no public investment.
This is particularly challenging in the context of escalating housing costs in London, where even sub-market and shared ownership tenures are out of reach for many, and estate regeneration is perceived as displacing existing communities for private gain.
This concluding section suggests what a successful outcome should look like, the challenges for policy-makers and the potential conflicts in current policy that might mitigate against these objectives.
To read the full Chapter please download the report.
Creating sustainable communities
Sustainable communities are places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all. (Living Geography) This quote encapsulates the objectives and preferred outcomes we are seeking. Sustainability requires a balance of social, economic and environmental outcomes, and needs to satisfy a diverse range of housing needs. Developments which provide a range of housing for a wide cross section of society lead to balanced and sustainable neighbourhoods, inherent community strength, social cohesion and quality of life for all. The best developers recognise the importance of social sustainability, and differentiate their approach from their competitors by demonstrating the benefits of an inclusive, supportive neighbourhood that can build a sense of community. They know it is popular with customers and generates enhanced value. The legitimate objectives for sustainable estate regeneration are wide and ambitious: to alleviate poverty, maximise the value and use of the public asset, increase the supply and quality of homes and invest in a solution that will endure without future public or private sector interventions. Estates are often large areas of relative social and economic deprivation with a ‘red line’ boundary that separates them from their surroundings. Breaking down this separation and integrating new development into the wider context unlocks potential to create value, and enhances the sustainable characteristics of a wider area. These aims can be difficult to reconcile in the current political and economic environment where financial drivers take precedence over social outcomes. Some key criteria for sustainable outcomes Environmental impacts Previous chapters set out methodologies for appraising whether an estate should be demolished and comprehensively redeveloped or retained, in part or in full, and refurbished, taking account of economic, social and environmental benefits now and into the future. Comprehensive redevelopment of ‘sink estates’ is often assumed to be the desired outcome, but this is not always either desirable or preferable. For example, Crossways Estate in Bow comprised three tower blocks accessed by high -level pedestrian walkways. It was isolated, unpopular and crime ridden, but has been retained and improved with a new network of streets that connect with their surroundings. Economic and social assessments suggested that refurbishment of the towers, with partial demolition and new build was the favored option. Conventional wisdom amongst environmentalists is that retention of existing residential stock, rather than demolition and rebuild, is preferred unless there is a very clear justification to do otherwise. Upfront capital costs are less, residents may not need to be decanted and communities can stay intact - plus the reuse of existing fabric is less wasteful of material. However, when viewed in terms of socio-economic as well as environmental impacts over a 60-year lifetime, a strong case for comprehensive redevelopment can be made. That’s because the existing stock performs poorly in environmental terms and the new development represents a significant improvement in quality of place and increase in housing provision. From a social sustainability perspective, consideration must be given to existing community cohesion and how the various development scenarios and decant strategies would impact on the protection of the social ties and cohesion within these communities. Seeding communities As set out in previous chapters, retaining an existing community at the heart of a regenerated neighbourhood is an important building block for cohesive new communities and successful regeneration. Residents with roots in the area have valuable insights, strong community ties and may contribute to its security by having in depth local knowledge. Tenants living in social housing are more often present in their neighbourhood and can take an active role in policing these challenging environments. Such attributes need to be harnessed and not lost in the process of refurbishment, infill or comprehensive redevelopment. The involvement of residents beyond the boundary of the estate is also an important ingredient for success. Lifetime neighbourhoods In terms of redevelopment, the objective should be to create a wide range of accommodation to suit local housing need and market demand by optimising the density, with the aim of generating value to fund the housing re-provision and other community benefits. Rebalancing tenures and diversifying the social mix will be essential to reintegrate the estate into the surrounding area and create a sustainable neighbourhood. The housing mix and range of tenures should be determined by the local context, not generic borough or regional targets. In the comprehensive redevelopment of the Haggerston and Kingsland Estate in Hackney, local residents were extensively consulted and eventually rehoused in a new mixed-tenure development which took account of local housing demand and the needs of existing residents. It provided family accommodation in the form of maisonettes accessed at ground level, with shared ownership and market sale apartments in medium rise, high-density blocks. Addressing affordability, so that those who live on an estate and others from the wider neighbourhood can afford to remain in the area, is an important ingredient to successful regeneration. Creating ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’ should be the objective, where a range of housing typologies and tenures is provided to enable all age groups to move up or down the property ladder or relocate to new affordable accommodation as their circumstances change. The needs of the wider London population should be taken into account, including those of first time buyers, mobile professionals in need of homes for rent, families in search of more suitable accommodation and older people wishing to downsize, as well as those on low incomes and vulnerable households needing subsidised rental options. Housing for people who provide essential services on low salaries, such as nurses, teachers and social workers, often require sub-market rented or low cost home ownership products. New models of housing are emerging, including cluster flats and micro-flats in the rented housing sector, multi-generational housing typologies for extended families and specialist housing for older people. Some of these new investor-led products lend themselves well to estate regeneration: as well as diversifying the overall offer, they can provide a more stable delivery programme than sales products that rely on a buoyant housing market for delivery. Conversely, a regeneration programme that is dominated by a single tenure will lead to unsustainable outcomes. Sustainable management A placemaking approach to management is required to deliver lasting quality and liveability. This requires a robust, fair and long-term management regime both for market and sub-market tenures. Service charges must be equitable and affordable for existing and new residents, with a menu of options for market sale and rent. For the estate to be integrated successfully in the surrounding area, there should be no visual distinction between tenures along a street or in a single block, with a tenure blind approach for market sale, shared ownership, low cost home ownership and sub-market rent. The challenge for housing providers is how to provide high quality affordable management in high density, mixed tenure developments. Barriers to sustainable communities and the challenges from current policy A combination of factors poses a threat to sustainable estate regeneration: financial austerity, an unbalanced housing market, public sector budget cuts, rising housing need, and public and political concern about the social impacts of regeneration. The challenge for government is to develop policies that support, and do not conflict with, sustainable outcomes for estate regeneration. We summarise below areas where potential conflicts arise. Affordable housing The definition of affordable homes is being expanded to include Starter Homes, a form of discounted home ownership that is planned to replace Affordable Housing in Section 106 agreements. If imposed on estate regeneration projects, this creates a clear risk in obtaining community support for new development. Although offering a 20% discount against market value, Starter Homes will require a large deposit and an average household income of £77k in London, putting them beyond the reach of most people living in council property. While some existing residents may have the resources to purchase a Starter Home, the majority will inevitably require some form of sub-market housing for rent, with rents capped at affordable levels. Leaseholders are more likely to find shared ownership a more realistic option than outright purchase. The absence of any funding for social or affordable rent in the current programme limits the ability of housing providers to satisfy the needs of existing residents. This in turn is pushing densities to excessive levels to cross-subsidise re-provision. Right to Buy The extension of Right to Buy and the disposal of high value council assets to fund it add to the difficulty of estate regeneration. Central government needs to take a non-ideological look at the true impact of Right to Buy on estates in London, especially now that it is extended to housing associations. Although the policy has helped to diversify tenure on previously mono-tenure estates and dilute concentrations of poverty, the practical effect has been a huge increase in the cost of regeneration, along with controversy, uncertainty and delay. For many post-war estates, physical condition and layout means radical change, including full or partial replacement, is the best long-term way to improve conditions for existing residents and create additional homes for a more diverse population. Right to Buy limits options for partial or comprehensive redevelopment by contributing to a spiral of increased costs to be met by cross-subsidy from market homes. The upfront cost of leaseholder buy-outs is sometimes met by pushing density to highly contentious levels, and an unsustainable imbalance in favour of market-sale properties against a spectrum of rented homes. This in turn leads to resistance among existing communities. To provide a stable financial basis for regeneration - and to avoid abuse of the system - Right to Buy should be suspended when an estate is earmarked for regeneration and during the regeneration process. Superdensity in estate regeneration Regeneration has never been easy, but it has become much harder in the past 5-10 years due in part to increasing density expectations and reductions in government subsidies. Ever-higher proportions of private housing are required to self-fund re-provision of affordable homes, and the overall amount of affordable housing has reduced as a proportion. Our work in Superdensity and Superdensity: the Sequel highlighted the challenges of designing sympathetically to the London context with the recent emergence of hyperdense development (over 350 homes per hectare) in the form of increasingly tall buildings. While height in itself is not a problem for appropriately located buildings for the right occupants, it can present a problem in delivering mixed communities and sustainable neighbourhoods. These are more successfully delivered in high density medium-rise street-based developments, which can be tenure-blind, easier to manage and have lower service charges. Such developments are more likely to be supported by local people and existing residents. Local authority role The government’s Estate Regeneration Statement, while welcome, expresses a presumption in favour of private sector delivery. However, other models can and should sit alongside this. For example, joint ventures between local authorities and investment partners offer an effective alternative - both taking a long-term view of their investment and sharing the returns. Furthermore, there is evidence that local authorities can successfully deliver regeneration without conventional private-sector-led partnerships - and councils can recycle profit directly for the public good. Reform of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) has opened the way for local authorities to be innovative in the use of their assets to generate value and satisfy local housing need in new ways. New forms of ownership, management and community-based models are possible where councils retain a financial stake in the development and create housing to suit their local circumstances. This leads to solutions that deliver equitable outcomes for the benefit of existing and local residents and provides revenues for the council. Lifting the HRA cap would provide more scope for councils to deliver more and better housing. The London Borough of Camden adopts a bold approach to developing its assets to generate revenues and rebalance tenures on existing estates. On Maiden Lane Estate, an example of iconic 20th century urban housing, the council elected to retain the architecturally sensitive existing blocks and develop a mix of new housing types and tenures, including mid-rise blocks and a tower to maximise shared ownership and market sale development. The council maintains a stake and manages the development. Housing PFI (Private Finance Initiative) programmes, such as Oval Quarter Regeneration project in London Borough of Lambeth, retain a public asset for the long term using a private sector delivery consortium to deliver development and ongoing management. Presumption in favour of demolition The Estate Regeneration Statement expresses a presumption in favour of demolition without due consideration to the social, environmental and architectural implications. The lower VAT regime for new build versus refurbishment favours redevelopment options and can be to the disadvantage of existing residents, depriving them of alternative deliverable approaches. Complex procurement Complex procurement processes, such as competitive dialogue, can get in the way of effective and timely consultation - especially if there is insufficient consideration given to the masterplan prior to approaching the market, with bidders working in isolation from existing residents. New mechanisms for raising private finance and long-term investment will be required as an alternative to public subsidy but the interests of existing residents should not be compromised as a consequence. |
Recommendations
National policies need to be tuned to deliver sustainable outcomes, and to allow for local flexibility: each estate requires a bespoke approach, taking account of the views of the local community, its elected representatives and other stakeholders. Solutions should reflect local housing need while also addressing the needs of the wider area in order to create truly sustainable neighbourhoods.
|