A home for life
In 1948 Dolly Wren moved to a new social housing estate in post-war London. Fiona Quirke finds out how the mix of general needs and sheltered housing means she’s still there today.
‘Even if I won the lottery I wouldn’t move from Isleden House. You can’t buy a community like you have here,’ states 77-year-old Dolly Wren, one of the estate’s first and now longest standing residents.
The great-grandmother moved to the estate in Islington, north London, in September 1948. At the time, Isleden House was hailed as a groundbreaking social experiment, successfully mixing sheltered accommodation and general needs housing.
In the 1950s Isleden House was described as ‘the design to aspire to’ with its built-in radios, wardrobes, ironing boards, parquet flooring and modern kitchens.
The estate, which has been owned and managed by the City of London Corporation since 1953, is still going strong. At the end of April it celebrated its 60th anniversary with a visit from the Duchess of Cornwall.
Mixed community
The winning formula of this housing model is its size - it has 76 flats, 33 of which are sheltered housing - so it’s small. From the age of 17 to 77,
Ms Wren has moved between three flats on the estate. As her housing needs have changed, she’s been able to transfer to more suitable accommodation on the same development.
When she arrived at Isleden House, Ms Wren, a teenage bride, lived in one of the estate’s general needs properties with her husband and three children, when her children flew the nest, she downsized and moved into a smaller property. Now she lives in one of the scheme’s sheltered housing units.
Ms Wren’s progression through homes that suit her needs looks likely to become the model among social housing tenants if new government plans come to fruition.
In July, Lord Freud, the Labour welfare reform advisor turned Conservative welfare reform minister, said: ‘We cannot continue with this absurd situation where some of our poorest families have to live in overcrowded conditions while others are subsidised to live in big homes with plenty of spare room.’
It’s not yet clear how the government cuts to housing benefit from 2013 will work but they are likely to see a cap on payments to anyone of working age living in a home that is too big for their household size.
It would seem that Isleden House has become an example of best practice almost by default. Sixty years ago, sheltered accommodation and general needs housing being developed on the same site was revolutionary.
When trustees of the London Parochial Charities - a charity which aims to reduce poverty and inequality in the Capital and is now called Trust for London - expressed an interest in building housing for elderly people on a World War II bomb site, Islington Council granted it permission on the proviso that it developed family homes as well. The charity handed it over to the City of London Corporation three years after completion.
Ms Wren believes the experiment was a great success. ‘You can live here independently and still be part of the community,’ she says.
Supporting older people
Residents living in sheltered accommodation receive a daily visit from estate manager Jacqueline Whitmore. Their flats are also equipped with a pull cord system in case they need to call for help.
Ms Wren is certainly very glad to have the extra support. ‘Having caring staff living on site makes you feel secure. Not all sheltered accommodation is as good as this,’ she states.
To maintain a sense of community, residents are encouraged to mix with people from different generations. At Christmas, for example, pupils from the nearby Islington Academy School visit Isleden House and put on performances for elderly tenants.
Members of the local Waterside Youth Group attend events and activities on the estate. During their visits, the youngsters have learned about old-fashioned board games from the more mature tenants and, in turn, they have learned the workings of a Wii console.
Community spirit
Potential tenants for the 44 general needs housing units at Isleden House must be able to demonstrate a local connection with the City of London. They must have either lived there or had family living there for a minimum of six months, or they must have been working in the area for at least 16 hours a week for six months.
Residents’ tenancy agreements include no tolerance towards anti-social behaviour and no pets are allowed on the estate.
Ms Whitmore says that ‘smaller estates are more sustainable than the larger ones’ - and that working together with outside agencies including social services, the police and the wider City of London Corporation means that residents and staff at Isleden House aren’t isolated.
For Ms Wren, Isleden House was a social experiment that paid off and, as she approaches octogenarian status, she has no plans to move.
Dolly’s 60 years at Isleden
Dolly Wren, 77, a stalwart of Isleden House, moved there as a newly wed at the age of 17 and still lives on the estate. The great-grandmother of two raised three children on her own when her husband left suddenly after 20 years of marriage.
Undeterred, Ms Wren took on two jobs to support her family - one in a shoe factory and the other cleaning offices at night.
Throughout her life at Isleden House, she has looked out for her neighbours. Later this year her community spirit is being publically recognised with an MBE for being the ‘perfect neighbour’.
The Duchess of Cornwall’s recent visit to Isleden House and Ms Wren’s own impending visit to Buckingham Palace are not her first brush with royalty.
One her first memories of living at Isleden is of Queen Mary, prince Charles’s great-grandmother, officially opening the estate in 1949.
She recalls the afternoon she saw the royal party from her balcony well as she was in a hurry to go to the ‘pictures’, but the Queen and her entourage were blocking the exit.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (10)
Chris | 20/08/2010 10:37 pm
What a terrific lady and wonderful example against those who are determined to label tenants with every new demonism under the Sun, or the Daily Mail.
A key passage: 'When she arrived at Isleden House, Ms Wren, a teenage bride, lived in one of the estate’s general needs properties with her husband and three children, when her children flew the nest, she downsized and moved into a smaller property. Now she lives in one of the scheme’s sheltered housing units.' is exactly how social housing was intended to work, and indeed as such would negate the current debate to force people out of their homes.
The problem has resulted from the lack of availble housing, partly caused by the Right-to-Buy removing flexibility by removing the most valuable family sized homes from social letting, and also by the lack of suitable housing for the elderly to down-size into. This last point is one of astonishing incompetence.
We have know for 50-years that the extent of elderly in the country would rise (although the falling birth rates were not as long ago predicted.) For the last 15-years the need for elder accomodation has been absolutely recognised. Yet nothing has been done to meet the need. Thousands of bedsits and young couples flats have been built, but little for families and less for the elderly.
Building the homes that are needed is the only sustainable and fair way out of the mess the underinvestment and sell off of housing has caused. It is affordable as the money exists to develop, can be raised against equity or rental stream forcasts, and will pay for itself through the growth it will spur in the real economy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 21/08/2010 7:13 am
The key paragraph in this story is:
"Potential tenants for the 44 general needs housing units at Isleden House must be able to demonstrate a local connection with the City of London. They must have either lived there or had family living there for a minimum of six months, or they must have been working in the area for at least 16 hours a week for six months.
Residents’ tenancy agreements include no tolerance towards anti-social behaviour and no pets are allowed on the estate."
Isleden works because of this and, more importantly, because it's run by City of London. Not LBI/HfI. If it were run by the LA/ALMO, it would be just be another sink estate full of workless, feckless inbreds with pitbulls. As the surrounding estates are. Compare the City of London approach of that of HfI:
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=ISLGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsislg&itemid=WeED14%20Jul%202010%2017:32:52:507
"Council tenants in Islington are not allowed to keep more than one dog in their home without special permission - but Homes for Islington, which runs the borough's housing estates, admits it barely enforces the ban.
Mr Malthouse said: "Estates like Andover are like villages. If one person's getting evicted because of breeding dogs then word will get around. There's no point in having policies if you don't enforce them. We're trying to encourage all local authorities and housing providers to get their act together."
So, on one hand you have the City of London Corp that states you must be working in the City to get housed and they enforce the terms of tenancy re ASB and dogs. The building works and gets written up in IH as a model of social housing.
On the other hand, in the very same borough, a few metres away, the estates run by the LA/ALMO are magnets for ASB and dog fighting and with said housing authority freely admitting they dont enforce the terms of tenancy.
It's obviously in the management isn't it? It's in a rigorous determination to ensure that only the right people get moved in in the first place and in enforcing the terms of tenancy when they do. Contract the City approach with that of HfI and the solution is clear. Those unable or unwilling to manage should be sacked with the job and the money given to those who can.
The Golden Lane Estate, on the borders of Islington and the City, were, commendably, given a vote on who manages their estate. The overwhelming result was for the City. On the basis of the story above, it is easy to see why. ALMOs who are not fit for purpose, because they refuse to do their job, should be sacked. I'm sick of hearing about ballots for stock transfer with the same duffers who have screwed up pushing for yet more power and lack of accountability. I'd like to see ballots for housing management with a choice of managing agent on the ballot paper. In Islington, given a vote, everyone I know would vote to sack HfI tomorrow and go with the City. The stories above illustrate the reasons for this perfectly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 21/08/2010 12:20 pm
Ranty bits aside there is common ground here. Giving every resident choice of landlord would be progressive, especially if it included self or cooperative management as a realisable option.
The down side thought is would every self-opinionated leaseholder (looking down their noses at tenants and labling them all in such negative terms so judgementally) be willing to abide by the decsion of the majority, or would they go into a terminal and destructive sulk.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 21/08/2010 1:30 pm
Of course if the vote was for leaseholders and working tenants only, on the basis of he who pays the piper (and really pays, like from their own pocket) calls the tune, then I'm sure we would all arrive at the "right" decision....!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 21/08/2010 2:30 pm
So in ILAG world there will be two levels of democracy. The with resources get to make the decision whilst those without resources do as they are told. So the Polit Bureau votes and the nation must conceed to their will - what sort of revivalist away day did you go on ILAG?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 21/08/2010 5:07 pm
Well one wouldn't expect the benefit claiming feckless attack dog breeders to vote for a management that would boot them all out would one? After all turkeys don't vote for Xmas...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 22/08/2010 1:25 pm
Oh -dear, won't you be upset when you find out that you did!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 23/08/2010 2:18 pm
I thought the key passgae was:
'Ms Wren has moved between three flats on the estate. As her housing needs have changed, she’s been able to transfer to more suitable accommodation on the same development.'
Exactly what is currently proposed...So it can be done as its been done already...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23/08/2010 3:08 pm
Melvin - I think the point is that Mrs Wren moved voluntarily. I, like a lot of others, think this element of choice should be removed and those with a larger property than they need don't have the option of staying there, although this would mean they have to have a suitable property to move to nearby where they still have a support network/friends/family, as Mrs Wren enjoys at Isleden House.
Where such a property exists the option of staying put (and denying a family a proper home) shouldn't be available.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ADEBAYO ADEMEFUN | 25/08/2010 10:29 am
A shinning example to Social Housing.Social landlords should adopt graduate tenancy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment