Memorandum by The Riverside Group (EMP
16)
1. EMPTY HOMES
AND LOW-DEMAND
PATHFINDERS
1.1 The Riverside Group includes six housing
associations working across Merseyside, the North West and the
Midlands. We operate in three of the Housing Market Renewal Initiative
(HMRI) Pathfinder areas—Merseyside, Oldham and Rochdale,
and Stoke. In total the associations in the Group own and manage
over 39,000 properties with a full range of tenure management.
1.2 We have preciously made submissions
to the Empty Homes and Decent Homes Inquiries, and our main concerns
in those submissions were:
Decent Homes
— The Decent Homes standard should
apply to properties in all tenures, and its application only to
social housing set a soft target for the Government, since the
real work is in the need to improve properties owned or managed
privately.
— Decent homes do not stop at the front
door, and decent homes in decent neighbourhoods should comprise
the full standard. Where this means demolishing and replacing
properties, this should be recognised, funded and managed strategically.
— Decent Homes investment by housing
associations should be appropriately resources so that they can
respond adequately to this wider neighbourhood agenda.
Empty Homes
— We have been forced to withdraw property
from letting where it is neither economic nor desirable for the
remaining tenants for us to continue letting.
— If Government policy in respect of
Compulsory Purchase Orders, major repairs funding and time-limiting
decisions for disposal could be strengthened, this would do much
to improve local difficulties with empty homes.
— Our fundamental problem is that of
area decline. We can deal with most of the problems of disrepair
in our stock through appropriate business planning. We cannot
deal with problems of wholesale housing market restructuring,
which is a regional and local government issue. It requires concerted
action and funding to drive the agenda forward.
1.3 We whole-heartedly welcomed the Pathfinders
initiative, which we saw as an essential tool to bring together
the contributions of all agencies in low demand areas, as well
as to fund the investment that is required.
1.4 Our original points apply equally well
to the empty homes and the low demand pathfinders. Decent Homes
are key to the success of the pathfinders, and decent neighbourhoods
are essential to the revival of the housing markets in which we
operate. There is no point social housing being decent if private
sector homes are not. Sustainable properties in sustainable areas
drive the empty homes agenda just as much as the issue of over
supply and local market values, and funding programmes that respond
to local circumstances is an important factor in the development
of the pathfinder responses.
1.5 It is the "concerted action and
funding to drive the agenda forward" to address the problems
of empty homes that remains necessary for the delivery of solutions
to empty homes under the low demand pathfinder programmes.
1.6 We believe that the key driver in the
work of the Pathfinders is the general obsolescence of the housing
stock in local areas and that this is what drives housing market
failure. There may be local surges in demand even in areas of
extreme market failure, but these will inevitably be short term
while the general property condition remains so poor. The legacy
of Victorian and Edwardian housing, 100 years old, with all the
associated problems of heat loss, poor light levels, inadequate
parking and lack of privacy together mean that the reasonable
expectations of contemporary families for a decent home and surrounding
area can not be met.
1.7 Our key concerns relate to your points
(a), (f) and (i). If we are right and the root of the empty homes
problem in areas of housing market failure is indeed obsolescence,
then demolition is essential to achieve the replacement properties
which will revive the local housing market. But if the mistakes
of previous area based improvements programmes are not to be repeated
then the softer aspects of the regeneration process, such as community
involvement and engagement and the essential links with Education
and Health must be delivered to create the broader framework which
will be required for future service delivery.
1.8 The Pathfinders may have had teething
problems, but given continuing support they will be able to tackle
the serious matters that remain to be addressed. They have made
progress already, and are making massive changes to the lives
of people in areas of great deprivation. Housing Associations,
as the local housing agencies, have made a vital contribution
to this work, and if we can be more radical with the necessary
clearance, then we can work together to provide homes which are
decent and sustainable, in revitalised areas, and make those strides
towards economic resurgence that is so essential to local people.
2 (A) THE
SCOPE AND
SCALE OF
THE INITIATIVES
PROPOSED AND
UNDERWAY IN
THE GOVERNMENT'S
HOUSING MARKET
RENEWAL PATHFINDER
AREAS AND
OTHER AREAS
WITH PROBLEMS
OF EMPTY
HOMES
Scope
2.1 The Riverside Group believes that the
scope of the intervention so far has been too narrow, and that
much more work remains to be done on directing mainstream service
provision and investment to support the objectives of housing
market renewal. Work on non-housing issues, like the rationalisation
of schools, will help in taking a holistic approach to the needs
of neighbourhoods. Without it there is a danger of HMRI becoming
another housing regeneration funding stream (albeit a very significant
one) rather than a framework for transformational change.
2.2 The problem of insufficient scope derives
partly from the relatively narrow funding criteria which severely
limit eligible expenditure, particularly in relation to revenue
interventions which support residents through change. It also
arises from the strategic planning and decision making structures
which largely remain within relatively traditional local authority
frameworks albeit with an enhanced inter authority co-ordination.
In some pathfinder areas in which we work decisions are being
made across local authority divides rather than within the sub
regional areas which were identified as a factor in housing market
failure. The new structures were meant to address the new issues,
but our perception is that they have not operated sufficiently
freely so far. We need a regional approach, and maybe it would
be better to concentrate all resources together rather than having
specialist units at each Local Authority in addition to the local
HMRI agency.
Scale
2.3 Just as we are concerned about the scope
of the funding, it is essential that the scale of the funding
is adequate to the task. In Merseyside alone, the plan is to clear
up to 20,000 properties which is expected to cost upwards of £700
million before allowing for expenditure on anything else. This
is partly driven by rising values fuelled by speculators, but
primarily by the sheer scale of the task.
2.4 It is essential to finish what has been
started which implies a very significant Government commitment
over an extended period. This will require a real understanding
that in early years evidence of positive outcomes may be very
limited—neighbourhoods may even get worse before they get
better. Clearance and neighbourhood regeneration is simply a task
which cannot be left half done! In some areas there is evidence
that, as the first green shoots of recovery start to flourish,
the funding instinct is to identify that the problem has been
solved. In Rochdale the Audit Commission believe that a funding
stream which is starting to impact in Middleton should be cut
because the problems it sought to address must now be solved.
Cutting funding now will waste the investment already made and
lead to a repeating of the same problems in future.
2.5 There is a danger that the highly monitored
approach being taken by the ODPM, using the Audit Commission from
the outset as already mentioned, could conflict with the known
drivers of successful regeneration. Whilst monitoring is important,
a light touch is required. Recent experience, in Manchester particularly,
shows that successful regeneration is driven by passion and political
will, and an approach to risk taking that is not very conducive
to evidence based monitoring in its early stages. Involving communities
requires innovative action not just repeating previous programmes.
Of course we are not arguing to ignore evidence—just to
use it more imaginatively and less myopically.
2.6 We are also concerned that the funding
already committed is being spread too thinly in the early years.
In Merseyside alone, there are simultaneous regeneration plans
for at least 12 neighbourhoods, with many more in the wings. It
will be difficult to sustain this level of simultaneous activity
at a scale which can achieve lasting neighbourhood change in a
way which past initiatives have failed to do. Maybe we need to
concentrate in a few areas at greater depth or risk repeating
earlier failures.
3 (F) THE
PRIORITY GIVEN
TO THE
DEMOLITION OF
HOMES AND
THE CONSIDERATION
GIVEN TO
EFFECTIVE METHODS
OF REFURBISHMENT
3.1 There is evidence that a high priority
is being given to clearance in HMRI strategic planning, especially
in Merseyside, although the ability to achieve the scale required
will be resource dependent. It is important to sustain this through
to implementation though this may become difficult both through
political loss of nerve and threatened resources. The temptation
to take the "easy" option of short to medium term repairs
and refurbishment will be high—not least on cost grounds.
3.2 But the root of the problem normally
lies in property obsolescence, rather than simple stock condition.
Short term investment may well lead to a temporary increase in
demand, particularly as housing levels dip, however as the level
of quality stock builds it will be difficult to sustain demand
for obsolete products in a housing market which is aspiration
driven. We have seen this happen in past investment programmes,
such is in Castlefields in Runcorn. It is therefore important
to sustain the early ambition of clearance programmes and, if
anything, reinforce this by ensuring that resources are not spread
thinly.
4 (I) HOW
PATHFINDERS ARE
SEEKING TO
INVOLVE THE
PRIVATE SECTOR
IN THEIR
LONG TERM
PLANNING AND
PROGRAMMES
4.1 There is already good evidence of Pathfinders
seeking to involve the private sector in the delivery of long
term programmes, such as the Merseyside OJEU approach, and this
is very welcome.
4.2 However there is less evidence of involving
the private sector in long term planning, and this may indicate
a capacity issue within the private sector. The pool of experienced
project managers with quality regeneration experience is very
limited, and their services often come at a premium. The Regeneration
Academy in Liverpool is an attempt by housing providers to address
this, but it is a medium term solution.
4.3 There are also very mixed responses
to the involvement of housing associations, whose ability to contribute
both at the strategic level and as major delivery agents are not
always being fully exploited. There may be too limited understanding
of the impact of Pathfinder activity on association businesses,
and policies need to be put in place which maximise the impact
association involvement in Pathfinder areas can make.
4.4 It will be important to forge early
partnerships between partners, such as housing associations and
the private sector, and this will require proactive management.
The regeneration of these areas cannot be a quick fix and these
partnerships may take time to create and deliver, but their effect
will be felt for many years to come.
4.5 We believe there is a need for more
innovative approaches, such as joint ventures between associations
and private sector partners. We are currently establishing just
such a partnership with Lovell to create a joint venture delivery
company to address regeneration opportunities across the country.
We believe that the mix of skills and qualities will foster a
successful and innovative approach to the challenges of successful
regeneration.
5. SUMMARY
5.1 The problem of empty homes and low demand
can only be addressed through long term planning and delivery.
Action needs to be wide-scale, but depth and local focus is essential.
Passion for working on regeneration schemes is fundamental. Working
across agencies, joining up existing programmes is key to successful
delivery. Funding must be committed for years into the future
and way beyond the early demolition phases otherwise regenerative
recovery cannot be guaranteed. The key to local neighbourhood
regeneration will be for the neighbourhoods to drive the agenda
themselves—and that is not yet happening, but will be prompted
by the early signs of recovery which will create local ownership.
5.2 Radical clearance is important to ensuring
the success of the HMRI programmes, because it is obsolescence
of the stock which drives housing market failure. Local housing
agencies, committed to the neighbourhoods in which they work,
are important to the regeneration of these areas.
5.3 HMRI activity is just starting to settle
into its stride, and it is setting out on a long and energetic
hill walk. It will be a great view when we get there!
| 
