ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

The future of regeneration is a complicated balancing act

Scathing comments by Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council’s deputy leader about the morality of housing associations might seem like a PR exercise. But the authority’s change of heart signals a broader shift in the political climate around regeneration, says Jules Birch 

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
RBKC’s change of heart is part of a broader change in the political climate
RBKC’s change of heart is part of a broader change in the political climate
Sharelines

The future of regeneration is a complicated balancing act, says @Jules_Birch

When England’s most high-profile local authority calls the behaviour of the country’s largest housing association “morally wrong”, you sit up and take notice.

Clashes between the local priorities of a council and the organisational ones of an association are nothing new, of course. But last week’s statements by the deputy leader of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Borough Council seem different.

Clarion is in his sights over rejected proposals for the regeneration of the Sutton Estate in Chelsea.


READ MORE

A critical eye: interview with Grenfell council’s deputy leaderA critical eye: interview with Grenfell council’s deputy leader
A question of morality: the debate over estate regeneration comes into focusA question of morality: the debate over estate regeneration comes into focus
Grenfell council accuses housing associations of ‘immorality’ in new policy documentGrenfell council accuses housing associations of ‘immorality’ in new policy document

Kim Taylor-Smith told Inside Housing last week: “If you look at the money Clarion have and the way that they are proposing to knock down and redevelop that estate with the loss of social housing units, I just think that morally is just wrong. It is a very grand old building, probably one of the first social estates in London, and William Sutton would be turning in his grave.”

A discussion paper from RBKC also proposes a more robust approach to empty properties, forcing developers to reveal their viability calculations if they cannot meet affordable housing requirements, and potentially even changes to Right to Buy.

This is all part of the council’s response to Grenfell and is informed by a determination to put tenants at the heart of decision-making.

It is easy to be cynical about this.

As with the Social Housing Green Paper, it may just be a PR exercise from a council still under severe scrutiny over its policies – one that could yet face charges over its management of the Grenfell refurbishment and response to the fire.

Three years ago, it approved regeneration plans from a company it owned that look very similar to the ones it now says are morally wrong.

However, the change of heart at RKBC is part of a much broader change in the political climate around regeneration across London.

To Grenfell-driven decisions in Kensington, add internal Labour politics and the rejection of the Haringey Development Vehicle. Top that with a change of political control and the downturn in the property market hitting the Earl’s Court redevelopment in Hammersmith & Fulham.

“The change of heart at RKBC is part of a much broader change in the political climate around regeneration across London.”

Mr Taylor-Smith reiterates RBKC’s policy that there will be ‘no regeneration of estates, no decanting’. He said: “We will refit and refurbish, but not remove and rebuild. We will consult with residents on how we can improve where they live.”

And the council’s beef with housing associations is not just about Clarion and the Sutton Estate.

The discussion paper also broadens out the criticism to include asset management policies by some associations. “As financial pressures have increased and central government grants to housing associations (HAs) have decreased, a small minority of HAs have relied more and more on private sales from inner London, where land values are high, to fund affordable developments outside the borough,” the paper says.

It adds: “The council believes that in this minority of cases, HAs have moved too far away from their core purpose.”

An approach to housing and regeneration that is locally led and focused on the needs of existing residents is in stark contrast to the model adopted by some of the more ambitious associations.

Supporters would argue that this involves balancing social and commercial objectives by maximising the number of affordable homes for the broader community through cross-subsidy from open market development.

But critics see that as relegating local authorities to junior partners, bypassing the wishes of existing residents and aping the worst practices of private-sector developers.

The truth may lie somewhere in the middle of a complicated circle that has to be squared by balancing the different and sometimes competing needs of existing tenants and leaseholders, local people who need homes, and national policy.

The broader question is what this means for the future of regeneration policy and housing associations elsewhere.

Lessons from what happens in the wealthiest part of London with the highest land values may not be applicable to the rest of the country.

There are as many different sorts of regeneration as there are varieties of housing association.

Smaller organisations are already much more community-focused in their work and some have adopted approaches that are almost the polar opposite of those seen in London.

“Lessons from what happens in the wealthiest part of London with the highest land values may not be applicable to the rest of the country.”

Some base their work on the principles of asset-based community development, working from the community out.

Others see themselves as part of the foundational economy and regard as broken the model of cross-subsidy, inflation-plus rent increases and unaffordable rents.

As for national government, future policy on regeneration was in retrospect one of the most ambiguous parts of a Social Housing Green Paper that emphasised engaging with tenants on the one hand, maximising the supply of affordable housing on the other, without seeming to recognise the potential conflicts between these two aims.

Only two paragraphs were devoted to ‘resident-led estate regeneration’: one noting concerns raised by tenants on consultation events that regeneration feels like something ‘done to them’ and the other referencing the need “to attract wider local public and private investment into estates” as part of an Estate Regeneration National Strategy that originated in David Cameron’s notorious comments about knocking down “sink estates”.

The concluding statement of the green paper is: “We will work with public, private and community sector partners to better understand how public and private investment can lead to improved social and economic outcomes for the existing community.” It may sound laudable, but it could mean practically anything.

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.