Written submissions received for the London Assembly’s
Housing Committee investigation into Social Housing Estate
Regeneration
9ROXPH RI 4
Ref
Organisation
Position/Title
6XE
&DPSDLJQ WR 3URWHFW 5XUDO
(QJODQG
John Croxen &35( /RQGRQ EUDQFK FKDLUPDQ
6XE
(OHSKDQW $PHQLW\ 1HWZRUN
Jerry Flynn
6XE
/RZ&DUERQ .QRZ+RZ
Chit Chong
6XE
/RQGRQ %RURXJK RI &UR\GRQ
Dave Morris +RXVLQJ 6WUDWHJ\ 0DQDJHU
6XE
/RQGRQ %RURXJK RI (QILHOG
Sarah Carter +HDG RI 'HYHORSPHQW (VWDWH
5HQHZDO
Towards a Liveable London
21
Looking forward –
the Campaign for a Liveable London
Over the next year CPRE London will be working to encourage further
discussion and debate on promoting liveable neighbourhoods in London.
CPRE London wishes to provide guidance and tools to enable citizens to
engage more positively in the design, construction and management
of new developments, and promote their own neighbourhood-level
housing initiatives, as well as borough-wide Local Plans. We also want
to encourage interprofessional working within and between London
boroughs, urban designers, planners, housing associations, developers
and investors.
The Campaign for a Liveable London will be
focused on the following activities:
Citizen’s toolkit –
in response to one of our own recommendations we
will develop an online toolkit for citizens active in
their local areas to promote positive engagement in
neighbourhood housing design, development and
management.
Liveable cities outreach –
Beyond London we are also looking to encourage a
similar approach to liveable cities in the rest of England
and will be working with national CPRE and county
branches to promote these principles.
‘Better builders’ award scheme –
we plan to develop an award scheme in London and
with CPRE branches in the South East to encourage and
recognise the best developers, working with and for local
communities, to create truly liveable, affordable and
compact communities.
Future research –
there is more research required regarding various issues,
including change of use, community engagement,
and intensification of the suburbs.
We invite other organisations and groups
to join us in working to make London one
of the most liveable cities in the world.
24 Towards a Liveable London
Notes
Dear Sir/Madam
We hope to attend the housing committee meeting 10
th
July 2pm and take the opportunity to
speak about ‘Demoliton and refurbishment of London’s social housing estates’ and our
experiences of the Heygate estate redevelopment; however work commitments may not allow
it, in which case we hope a representative from Just Space will say a brief word on our behalf.
We also give our answers below to the key questions put by Darren Johnson, Chair of the
Committee, in his letter of 20 June 2014. This is not ideal, but we trust the committee will
nonetheless give due consideration to the lessons learnt from the Heygate redevelopment, as
we see them.
Regards
Jerry Flynn
ͻ tŚĂƚ ŝƐ ƚŚĞ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ŽĨ ƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞƐ ĂŶĚ ǁŚŽ ďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ͍
The Heygate estate was a council estate of 1200 homes, built in the early 70’s. It has been
demolished as part of the wider regeneration of the Elephant and Castle opportunity area. The
residents were promised new homes but in the event only 45 tenants have moved to such new
homes while the rest have moved to current council housing stock, where they are likely to stay
(evidence CPO enquiry 2013). Most of the Heygate tenants have remained in Southwark, but
leaseholders have been obliged to move much further afield, because the level of compensation
was too low to allow the purchase a local home
http://affordable.heroku.com/blog/2013/06/08/the-heygate-diaspora/; promises of
advantageous purchase schemes were not kept. There were also a significant number of non-
secure tenants removed from the estate – 283 (Jan 2008 decant report). Southwark Council
cannot provide any collated information of where they moved to; those who had a housing
entitlement would have moved to current council housing stock, but it is unlikely that many
moved to new homes.
The Heygate is now almost demolished and it will be replaced by about 2,500 new homes, only
79 of which will be social rented, a net loss of about a thousand social rented units. This huge
loss of social rented housing is mitigated somewhat by about 600 new units elsewhere in the
opportunity area, including replacement housing for the Heygate, but it still means a net loss of
about 600 social rented units (figures from planning applications and CPO evidence). There will
also be about 800 intermediate units and 200 affordable rent units, but these are demonstrably
not affordable to those in most housing need, as successive housing need surveys carried out by
Southwark Council have shown.
On the other hand there will be a very large increase in free-market housing, 2000 on the
Heygate, about a 1000 elsewhere in the opportunity area. A one-bed property on the first
phase of the Heygate redevelopment, Trafalgar Place, is currently advertised at £435K
http://www.primelocation.com/for-sale/property/london/rodney-road/trafalgar-place/
It is therefore quite clear who benefits from the Heygate redevelopment and the wider
regeneration of the Elephant, in terms of housing – private developers and those who can
afford the homes they build. It is equally clear that those who do not benefit are sitting council
tenants, insecure tenants and current leaseholders. Those on Southwark’s housing waiting list
who lost housing opportunities, as a consequence of the need to rehouse those displaced by
regenerations, should also be mentioned. There is some opportunity for home ownership for
those who can afford intermediate housing, but this is far outweighed by the net loss of
desperately needed social housing in Southwark.
ͻ tŚŝĐŚ ĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ ĂƌĞ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƌĞĨƵƌďŝƐŚ Žƌ ĚĞŵŽůŝƐŚ ĂŶĚ ƌĞďƵŝůĚ͍
The Elephant & Castle regeneration process began in 1997 and in essence seeks to ‘overcome
the barriers that have constrained growth and release the area’s potential’ (CPO evidence). This
was to be done by taking advantage of the Elephant’s favourable geographic position and its
excellent transport links. In parallel Southwark commissioned a stock condition survey of the
Heygate as part of an options appraisal under the Southwark Estates Initiative, a government
funded programme. This identified ‘partial demolition and refurbishment’ as the preferred
option. This conclusion was based on physical factors – eg the state of repair of the estate, the
costs of the various options and comparisons with other estates. However a further factor was
also considered – the value of the land; the demolition of the site ‘would release the value of
this strategically placed site’ (CPO evidence). This was the deciding factor in the decision to
demolish. The estate was removed from the SEI in 2000 and ‘from that point the Heygate Estate
became a key component of the wider vision for the E&C area’ (CPO evidence).
It is also worth mentioning some
ex post facto factors. The estate gained an undeservedly bad
reputation for violence and anti-social behaviour, largely from 2007 onwards, which was
fostered by its continual use as a film and TV set for ‘gritty dramas’, such as The Bill. This served
to justify the estate’s demolition in the public eye and to excuse the local authority’s broken
promises to the residents.
ͻ ,Žǁ ĂƌĞ ƚĞŶĂŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ůĞĂƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚ Žƌ ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĞĚ ĂŶĚ Ăƚ ǁŚŝĐŚ ƐƚĂŐĞƐ͍
There have been two major phases to the redevelopment of the Heygate – 1997-2002; 2002 –
to date. The first phase failed, when relations between the developer and Southwark Council
broke down; however this phase was characterised by a formal ‘tripartite’ relationship between
the local community, the Council and the developer. The local community was represented by
funded organisations and the development plans could only move forward with the agreement
of all three parties. The second phase of the development abandoned this approach and
instead drafted a vision for the area (the 2004 E&C Framework SPD), for which Southwark then
sought a developer partner, which was eventually to be Lend Lease.
During both phases of the development the tenants and leaseholders were consulted through
the TRA, and by other usual means – meetings, leaflets, surveys and exhibitions. The
consultations were conducted for Southwark or the developers by various organisations. The
consultation process has given rise to many issues – the use the consultation results, the range
of samples polled, the representativeness of poll results, the choice of topics consulted on, the
omission of other topics, the independence of the consulting organisations.
Two noteworthy points about the Heygate consultation give good reason for scepticism about
its value - the desire of 63% of residents to return to a council home on the estate, reflected by
MORI poll 1999, has not been realised, while the Heygate Action Plan of 2007, which decanted
the estate before replacement homes were built, was adopted by the Council with no
consultation of residents whatsoever.
ͻ ,Žǁ ĚŽĞƐ ƚŚĞ ƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŽƌŬ ĂŶĚ͕ ŝŶ ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌ͕ ǁŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ŬĞLJ ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ ĨŽƌ ĞƐƚĂƚĞ
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͍ ,Žǁ ĂƌĞ ƚŚĞƐĞ ďĞƐƚ ŵĂŶĂŐĞĚ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƐŽůǀĞĚ͍
There are multiple problems for the residents during a regeneration process; the first is
retaining confidence that the local authority is acting in their interests, rather than a developers
– we believe that this has decidedly not been the case at the Heygate. The process itself is long
and inevitably has its ups-and-downs; in our case every problem seemed to be solved at the
expense of the residents eg the delay in building the replacement housing was met by decanting
into current council housing stock. Changes of plan also cause confusion (we must acknowledge
that with the best will in the world it is hard to keep an estate of 1200 households, not just
informed, but fully engaged). We also do not think that Southwark took sufficient account of the
impact of the regeneration on the different life circumstances of people eg on the elderly and
families with school-age children.
The decant was a particularly fraught process. Secure tenants had to find their own rehousing
through the choice-based allocations system, ‘Homesearch’, with the possibility of eviction
proceedings should they fail; leaseholders had to find what they could with inadequate
compensation; insecure tenants, who could have been living on the estate for several years,
were rehoused according to their individual circumstances with no guarantees of a secure
tenancy. All-in all the regeneration and its uncertainties were a constant in people’s lives and
experienced by them as a decade long act of attrition.
On the practical side the upkeep of the estate declined over the period. Southwark made a
commitment to maintain the estate throughout the whole regeneration process, and indeed had
an obligation to do so, and it should be noted that it spent a significant amount repairing the
hot water system during this period. However, the council stopped issuing secure tenancies in
Jan 2001, instead using voids as temporary accommodation. This began the process of
emptying the estate and gave it a much more transient atmosphere, as people lost old
neighbours and only gained new ones for a short period of time, before they too moved on.
This accelerated after 2007, when the decant proper began and perhaps inevitably, the estate
became a much less pleasant place to live. The final days of the last residents became
particularly difficult when central supplies of hot water and heating were cut off and they
definitely perceived this as an attempt to force them from the estate.
Southwark Council ostensibly had the means to manage and resolve these issues; for instance it
put in place a dedicated team of officers to assist tenants with the decant, installed a security
team to patrol the estate and kept the estate’s public space fully lit for most of the time.
However this was often not experienced by the residents as a help to them, more as a means of
removing them from the estate as efficiently as possible. We would argue that whatever means
are used, they will not work unless the local authority retains the full confidence of the
residents, and that they in turn can see a tangible benefit from the regeneration, one that
justifies the disruption to their lives.
ͻ tŚĂƚ ŵŽƌĞ ĐŽƵůĚ ƚŚĞ DĂLJŽƌ ĚŽ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞ ƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ǁŚŝůƐƚ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐ ŵŝdžĞĚ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͍
We understand that the circumstances for the demolition of a council estate have to be fully
warranted according to the London Plan. We believe that whatever the conditions in the Plan it
has failed in this instance to provide better housing for Heygate residents or anyone in
Southwark who is most in housing need. Not only should the Plan itself set higher hurdles
before an estate is demolished, the Mayor should use his or her powers to ensure it is not
circumvented by local authorities acting in the better interests of developers.
There is a big imbalance of power between the local community, councils and developers. This
needs to be addressed if regenerations, which are inevitably disruptive, are to be of benefit of
the sitting local community. The community must be able to organise itself independently and
be able to pay for its own expert help and opinions. There must be a free flow of information,
including financial information between all parties. This should be recognised as a legitimate
cost of the development and could be recouped from developer profits.
The rehousing options for tenants and leaseholders are too loosely protected and should be
strengthened. Local authorities should be required to continue issuing secure tenancies
throughout a regeneration process. Compensation for leaseholders should be sufficient for
outright ownership of a new property in the regeneration.
‘Maintaining mixed communities’ seems a worthy goal, but unfortunately in our case it proved to
be a euphemism, not just for getting rid of council houses, but for ejecting from the area
leaseholders who could no longer afford to stay after losing their homes. This ambition can only
be achieved by making the priority of any regeneration the provision of truly affordable housing,
not just housing labelled as such; in Southwark’s case, and in the case of many London
boroughs, this means building more social rented housing.
END
Dear Tom & Lorraine,
Attached is my presentation on the option of building on top of existing walk up blocks of
flats.
As we discussed, the costs of retrofit of existing dwellings in conjunction with upwards
extension will be lower then for replacement of the block and additional floors because so
much of the building fabric especially foundations are retained.
The implications of their retention is also that the embodied carbon is significantly reduced.
In comparison, the embodied carbon of an equivalent knock down and rebuild will be much
higher. This means that the embodied carbon emissions could represent about 100 years of its
annual carbon emissions as the emissions of the new building will be much lower than the
houses they replaced. That being the case, the embodied carbon must be taken into account in
comparing the environmental benefits of knock-done estate regeneration versus build high
and retrofit approach to regeneration.
Regards
Chit
Build Higher and Retrofit
to cutting carbon and building low
energy homes
July 2014 Chit Chong LowCarbon KnowHow
• Half of UK emissions are from energy used in
buildings – 28% just from housing
• 4.4 million homes built before 1919 and much of
that built up to the 1970s are not much better.
• 120,000 new homes built /year 0.5% /yr of stock
• 250,000 new homes required – 42,000 in
London
• Low energy retrofit rate – low hundreds/year.
Stuff we all know
• Add an extra two storeys to the 3 to 5 storey
walk-up blocks.
• Ring fence sale profi ts to retrofi t existing
dwellings
• 5,000 fl ats in walk-up blocks in LB Camden
housing stock.
• Potential for about 1,000 new dwellings and
2,000 low energy retrofi ts in Camden housing
stock.
Build Higher and Retrofit
•
Reference projects
Building higher
on existing
foundations:
Clifton House
Euston Road
70s build
•
Reference projects
Tale of two estates: Ex GLC type blocks in Swiss Cottage
one extended (private sector) one not (private sector) 1950s
•
Reference projects
Du Cane Road : Building High & Retrofit in action
•
Reference projects
Knock down and
rebuild hubris:
Kings Crescent
Estate. 514 homes
to be replaced by
880 in 2002 now
just given
permission for 765
– part demolished
since 2002
Build High vs Knock Down
Based on 30x 2
bed flats
increased to 45
Knock Down &
Rebuild
Build High & Retrofit
(based on market price
of £230K -10% profit)
Cost (estimate)
per low energy
dwelling
£150K new
foundations and
dwellings
£70K foundations
retained refurbishment
at £26K/dwelling
Embodied Energy
based on RICS
data
250% more than
Build High
Retained foundation
and lower floors
Consultation
Very Difficult due to
high level of rolling
decant
Difficult due to
disruption and noise
• Private sector route by supporting developer
partnerships
• Public sector route by funding research and
project development to identify, secure funding
to instigate pilot projects with RSLs.
• Mainstream by promoting Planning Guidance in
favour of Build High & Retrofit.
• Increase geographical spread by ringfencing any
proceeds of sales from high value areas to
others within boroughs and beyond.
How to get it under way
• Discussing with local authorities
• Linking with contractors and developers
• Bid to TSB for project development funding
• Looking at procurement implications.
• Open to public sector funding and support to do
this.
Role of LowCarbon KnowHow
Dear Mr Johnson,
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2014 concerning demolition and refurbishment of social housing
estates. I apologise for the fact that this response on behalf of Croydon is not fuller, however, we do
not have any developed plans for the demolition of any of our housing estates at the moment. Our
programme of works is based on the condition of the buildings in question, historic investment
decisions and our responsibilities with respect to the decent homes standard. Obviously, we consult
with leaseholders as required and in addition consult with tenants and leaseholders representatives
on the detail of our annual housing investment programme.
We are currently planning to commission a borough-wide estate appraisal with the aim of
identifying opportunities for addressing a range of issues impacting our tenants and leaseholders,
such as tackling anti-social behaviour, improving the energy efficiency of hard-to-heat properties
which might combine well with overcladding to modernise the appearance of unattractive blocks,
improving estate accessibility and linking up to wider regeneration programmes (eg transport
infrastructure) and increasing housing supply. In terms of new supply, we will be looking for scope
for replacement of some existing housing with homes at a higher density, or which better meet local
housing need, or which make for better communities, as well as adding to our current list of small
infill sites and redundant garage sites for new-build.
We are therefore very interested in the findings of the LA’s investigation as they may be relevant to
Croydon in future and provide some useful lessons. It would be very helpful to be kept informed of
the progress of the call for evidence and any work that emerges from it as a result.
Best regards.
Dave Morris
Housing Strategy Manager
Department of adult services, health and housing
Housing strategy, commissioning and standards division
3E Bernard Weatherill House, 8 Mint Walk
Park Lane, Croydon CR0 1EA
Tel:
Mobile:
Email: Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
London Assembly Housing committee - Demolition and refurbishment of
London’s social housing estates - Enfield Councils Response
Enfield Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the London Assembly Housing
Committee Investigation into the demolition and refurbishment of London’s Social Housing
Estates using experience gained over the last 5 years.
What is the purpose of regeneration programme and who benefits.
a) Over the last 5 years Enfield Council has embarked on an ambitious programme of
estate renewal and new build programmes.
Our projects, which include Laddesrwood, Highmead, Alma and New Avenue, all
have a different approach to the procurement process but all suffer from the same or
similar issues around condition of the blocks. Decision to demolish and rebuild poor
performing estates has primarily been based on cost of improving stock which has a
limited shelf life, poor construction methods and potential health and safety issues.
However residents have always been involved in the ultimate decision on whether to
demolish or refurbish blocks and many of their reasons include amongst others anti-
social behaviour issues and crime levels.
b) In the context of our estate renewal projects we believe that extensive consultation
and communication is undertaken with tenants, leaseholders, other residents and
local businesses during the whole process from inception to completion. Resident
Panels have been set up or extended to engage residents in the process and we
have appointed ITLA’s for each project to manage community expectations for the
redevelopment. We hold regular meetings with residents provide information,
translation and play workers when required. Design panels to influence design of
new homes are held once a developer is appointed and on two of the four projects
residents have prepared a Residents Aspirations document that will influence
developers design pre planning.
c) What are the key problems for estate residents during the process and how are they
best resolved.
There are many so I have bullet pointed them below;
Residents expectations in terms of timescales for scheme completion
Lack of resident understanding in terms of financial viability
Desire to remain secure tenants
Objections to RSL involvement – fear of being an RSL tenant
Continuity of estate improvement works and repairs over the life of the
redevelopment by the ALMO
Selection of new homes and where they will live once the homes have completed.
Offer to Leaseholders re affordability and availability of new homes on the estate,
specifically those living in low value tower block homes.
All issues raised by residents and the local community are addressed either via the residents
panel, one to one meetings or separate consultation events held and managed by the team.
What could the Mayor do to support effective regeneration whilst maintaining mixed
communities?
d)
Additionality is very difficult to achieve on estates that are in parts of the borough where
transport links are poor and subsequently suffers from poor PTAL ratings. More funding
towards infrastructure for these areas would be a good intervention in the estate
regeneration process.
e)
The council are looking at finalising the criteria for shortlisting future estate renewal
schemes and currently looking at the following process as mechanism for selecting
estate renewal opportunities over the next 30years.
Proposed Shortlisting Criteria
A two stage assessment firstly considers quantitative data to determine the condition,
investment needs, energy efficiency and the extent to which tenants want to live on an
estate to provide a ranking of the worst estates in the borough.
Stage One Criteria:
Income and expenditure
SAP rating
Structural condition
Number of choice based letting bids on or off an estate
The second stage takes forward the stage one work but adds qualitative data in order to
prioritise estates most suitable for redevelopment.
Stage Two Criteria:
Worst estates (stage one results)
Indices of multiple deprivation
Decanting Opportunities
Financial viability
Residential uplift potential
These sets of criteria, once weighted, will enable a shortlist of estates to be identified which
can then be grouped into short, medium and long-term priorities.
Tenant & Leaseholder Issues
There have been many good examples of collaborative working with residents and
residents associations on our schemes including developing a local lettings plan,
amending and changing assured tenancy agreements to support the transfer from a
council tenant to an RSL.
Breaking up of the community on our largest estate has been a consideration but
many who live in tower blocks have seen moving as an opportunity to access existing
council housing stock that they would not normally be an option which may include a
house or flats in low rise blocks in a the west of the borough.
Our largest estate renewal scheme has an estate based office which has been key to
the success of the project. The residents are able to access staff Monday to Friday
and we open late on a Wednesday to catch those that are working.
Positively we have involved resident associations in part of the developer shortlisting
which ensures transparency and empowers residents in the selection process.
Housing Providers
The local authority are always clear on the options available to residents when
discussing the project and promises are only made where there is a level of certainty
of delivery, if we can offer secure tenancies and lower rent levels than we will but
always ensure they are aware that ultimately financial viability is key to delivery.
Stock transfer has not been considered but these could be an option in the future to
support our Business Plan.
In the past we have provided several options before procuring developers as it
enables residents to view indicative designs, possible height increases and increased
numbers to make schemes viable for redevelopment.
We have not undertaken any carbon lifecycle or footprint analysis for renewal
projects although our Development Management Document includes very strong
policies on sustainable development so these issues are addressed at the planning
stage.
I hope you find these comments useful and if there is any further information please feel free
to contact me.
Sarah Carter, Head of Development & Estate Renewal, London Borough of Enfield Redacted
