Written evidence submitted by London Tenants
Federation
1. INTRODUCTION
The London Tenants Federation (LTF) is an umbrella
body bringing together borough wide council tenant federations
and organisations across London
LTF focuses principally on regional housing, planning
and community related policy issues and how those impact at the
local level. LTF members are represented on the Mayor Housing
Forum and have taken part, via formal invitation, in Examinations
in Public of the London Plan.
It attended 18 policy debates of the Examination
in Public of the draft replacement London Plan, including those
on the regeneration, housing targets, density and space standards,
Lifetime Neighbourhoods, the Olympic Legacy, social and community
infrastructure.
2. KEY BULLET
POINTS
— — LTF
is concerned that despite high and ongoing development in London,
sometimes called "regeneration", that the gap between
rich and poor in the capital continues to widen. A quarter of
London adults and more than 40% of children across London as a
whole live in poverty.
— — Large
regeneration/redevelopment schemes often fail to address need
for both housing and employment of existing "deprived"
communities.
— The
GLA's housing requirement study found that to address existing
need for social-rented housing in London over a 10 year period
would require that of all homes built in the capital, 58% should
to be social rented. Its 2008 Housing Market Assessment indicates
that with housing benefit changes taken into account; this need
rises to 64%. Monitoring reports of the London Plan show that
between 2006-09, only around a third of evidenced need for social
rented housing, while double that for market housing is produce
in the capital (see table attached).
— — LTF
is concerned that whilst it is generally suggested that regeneration
is about addressing "deprivation", that there is little
evidence of the tracking of benefit or otherwise to existing deprived
communities and no tracking of levels of displacement.
— — There
is increasing amounts of academic evidence that would suggest
that the policy focus of creating 'mixed tenure' in regeneration
areas is "faith-based" rather than evidenced-based.
There is increasing concern at the grass roots level that the
focus benefits wealthier sections of the community but ignores
the needs of poorer sections.
— — LTF
members suggest that London "regeneration"/development
has often resulted in:
— (i) reductions
in social-rented homes;
— (ii) monopolisation
part of London for luxury developments;
— (iii) replacement
of: local shops, services and amenities that had previously met
the needs of poorer communities, with exclusive shops, restaurants,
cafes and facilities that they cannot afford;
— (iv) increased
levels of transience and anti-social behaviour resulting of increases
in buy to lets on local authority and housing association estates;
and
— (v) loss
of valuable and precious green space.
— — LTF
members are critical of the fact that many regeneration schemes
operate in a top down rather than bottom up fashion; many being
developer-led, with the community only involved in any discussions
once plans that already been drawn up. Where there is discussion
at an early stages, there is often a focus on drawing up unrealistic
"wish lists", that lack of transparency about how plans
might be achieved and how much funding may or may not be available.
— — LTF
members say that there are examples of regeneration schemes that
have been successful and that have facilitated carefully planned
and sustainable community-led projects. They suggest that such
schemes have been developed and tailored to meet existing need
rather than being imposed from above/being developer led.
— — There
is need for social impact assessment benefit or otherwise to existing
and poorer communities in regeneration schemes, clarity and transparency
around funding and monitoring of any displacement of existing
communities.
3. ACADEMIC EVIDENCE
(a) CLG's: "Delivering Mixed Communities,
learning the lessons from existing programmes" March 2009
- www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/deliveringmixedcommunities
suggests that developing mixed tenure communities is "based
on hope rather than evidence". It says there are huge gaps
in understanding about the approach including: the impact on original
or indigenous populations, what happens to non-returners, the
consequences of segregated as opposed to integrated developments
and whether the range of incomes in any development or whether
the accommodation mix matters, in creating sustainable communities.
(b) Paul Cheshire's "Policies for Mixed
Communities: Faith-Based Displacement Activity?" says that
although empirically income mixing, even in very small neighbourhoods,
is considerable, it is still true that poor people tend to be
concentrated in poor neighbourhoods and richer people in more
affluent ones. He says careful examination of the evidence suggests
that such policies for neighbourhood mixing are based more on
faith than on any real evidence of additional social ills stemming
specifically from geographical concentrations of poverty and affluence.
(c) CLG commissioned research on long-term New
Deal for Community Schemes "Tackling economic deprivation
in New Deal for Communities areas" (January 2010) www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/trackingeconomicdeprivation
provides evidence that significantly improving indicators of deprivation
in certain areas (through introducing wealthier communities) can
in fact skew area based indicators of deprivation and can conceal
actual increases in deprivation levels for existing deprived communities.
(d) CLG's "Tenure and change in deprived
areas: Evidence from the New Deal for Communities areas"
- www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1462924.pdf
(February 2010) concludes "The evidence would seem to suggest
that all that encouraging mixed tenure will do is dilute the concentrations
of worklessness in a particular area, not improve the life chances
of the workless or disadvantaged individual themselves."
(e) Paul Cheshire's 2007 "Segregated Neighbourhoods
and Mixed Communities" (Joseph Rowntree Foundation/LSE) provides
evidence that moving wealthier residents into poorer areas results
in increases in property prices and goods and services; actually
making life harder for less well-off residents.
(f) Irmie and Thomas in "The limits of property-led
regeneration" (1993) argues that the property-led approach
can undermine local and community interests, particularly as it
prioritises the short-term objectives of the property industry.
(g) August and Walks "From Social Mix to
Political Marginalisation?" The Redevelopment of Toronto's
public housing and the Dilution of Tenant Organisational Power
2009 found that diluting concentrations of poverty was found to
break up "a strong sense of community, a history of political
activism in the face of unsupportive housing management, a significant
degree of political influence in local decision making, and in
turn a dense network of tenant-led and tenant serving organisations".
4. LTF AND GRASS
ROOTS EVIDENCE
(NEGATIVE)
(a) Tower Hamlets
The £10 billion investment in Canary Wharf created
80,000 jobs and a 22% average pay of high-value male workers to
over £100,000; yet two-thirds of the children living in Tower
Hamlets continue to live in households officially defined as poor.
CLG's case study of Tower Hamlets in its 'Tackling
economic deprivation in NDC areas' shows that majority of LSOAs
in Tower Hamlets became relatively more deprived between 1999
and 2005. However one LSOA in the borough experienced a significant
improvement. The size of the improvement in this single LSOA was
sufficient to result in Tower Hamlets showing an overall improvement
in relative deprivation between1999 and 2005.
(b) West Hendon regeneration, LB Barnet
West Hendon is an area of 680 council homes situated
on 10.5 acres of land with a children's playground, a community
centre and green spaces adjacent to the Welsh Harp Reservoir.
Whilst it is clear that existing homes need investment, that there
is a need for additional community and social infrastructure;
including doctors, dentists and additional school places, and
that the local high street looks much poorer and less varied in
terms of shops than in the past, plans appear to be for over-development
that fail to address the need of the existing community. It is
proposed that the 680 homes will be demolished and replaced with
2,171 new homes some of which will be £1 million and £1.5
million penthouses. There are to be no new/additional social-rented
homes and it is unclear as to whether replacement homes will actually
result a loss of social-rented homes in favour of intermediate
housing and will result in some displacement of existing residents.
In London intermediate housing is outside the reach of most tenants
(the GLA's 2004 Housing Requirement study found that only 7% of
those unable to afford market housing in London could afford the
cost of intermediate homes).
Local residents say are not aware of any assessment
carried out of the need for additional community facilities, schools
or nurseries.
The Welsh Harp is a special scientific interest area
with 170 hectares of open water, marshes, trees and grassland.
Residents fear that noise and shading from some of the proposed
taller blocks and will scare away wildlife.
Residents say the "regeneration" plans
were presented to them as a fait accompli, with no genuine
concern to address the needs of existing residents.
(c) Exclusive luxury river-side developments/regeneration
schemes providing little or no social-rented housing
Many of the "regenerated" areas set out
below were once areas of employment for ordinary working class
people - serving communities living adjacent to them.
St Georges Wharf development, Lambeth
Comprises studio, one, two and three bed luxury apartments
and penthouses for sale, retail units, offices and restaurants
units, and a 24hr health/fitness facility. It contains 1,021 private
homes and 389 - intermediate shared / ownership units, but no
social-rented homes. The development is in Oval ward which is
made up of eight smaller geographical areas Lower Super Output
Areas, (LSOA), five of which are among the most deprived areas
nationally.
Albert Embankment and other Lambeth riverside developments
Parliament View, a 190 luxury apartment block, has
no social-rented homes. £1.3 million in lieu of affordable
housing was spent in 2004 on only eight units in Herne Hill; a
different ward.
The average house price paid at the Albert Embankment
development is £614,468.
Doon Street, (behind the National Theatre in Bishops
Ward) has a 329 luxury flats with no affordable housing. It is
in Bishops ward which is made up of six LSOAs; four are among
the most deprived areas nationally.
Battersea Reach, Wandsworth
A new 12.8 acre riverside development which, when
complete, will have 1,380 apartments. Only 72 (5%) of which will
be social-rented.
Its 17 story tower has 40 two and three bedroom apartments
and a penthouse. Apartments have a private balcony or terrace
with "stunning panoramic views of the River Thames from Putney
through to Chelsea Harbour". It has a 24 hour concierge with
CCTV, a health and fitness suite on site. It contains no affordable
homes.
Wandsworth Riverside Quarter is a development of
six buildings up to 15-storeys in height, 504 residential homes
and 8,336 sq m of commercial floor space. Only 49 (9%) of the
homes will be social-rented.
The 170 million Beetham tower beside Blackfriars
Bridge
Southwark. Developers received permission in 2008
for a 7* hotel and 64 luxury flats marketed at £1 million
to £8 million each plus 32 intermediate flats in an outhouse
on-site. £15 million was agreed by Southwark to provide 45
social-rented flats on a site in the New Kent Road which has 99.1%
affordable housing and is in the most deprived 5% LSOA of the
country.
(d) Bunhill and Clerkenwell, Islington
Bunhill is adjacent to the City Fringe opportunity
area and Clerkenwell contains the Smithfield / Farringdon intensification
area. The area currently covers 80% of employment floor-space
for Islington's part of the London's Central Activity Zone.
Buildings that formerly housed its manufacturing/light
industry/engineering-base were gradually replaced by office buildings
from the 1980s and loft/luxury apartments (at least 2,500) from
the 1990s. Dominant employment is now office work, in the financial/other
service sector and creative/media industries.
Clerkenwell has been more heavily gentrified - with
wealthier loft and luxury apartment dwellers moving into the area
than in other areas. Local shops have been replaced with expensive
specialist shops, delicatessens, cafes, restaurants and galleries,
which meet the needs of wealthier loft/luxury flat dwellers. Extreme
wealth sits cheek by jowl with extreme poverty with absolutely
no evidence of benefit (and more so of detriment) to deprived
sections of the community.
A once more "deprived" Clerkenwell community
no longer appears in area-based analyses of deprivation. The mean
household income level has risen to £55,041. However, half
of the households have an annual income of £18,000 or less
and in parts of the ward that fall within the EC1 New Deal for
Communities area this drops to £12,045 (a weekly income of
£232) or less.
Bunhill's gentrification has occurred more recently
and at the City Fringe/Shoreditch/Clerkenwell edges. More of the
EC1 New Deal for Communities area is in Bunhill than in Clerkenwell.
Attempts were made by the authorities in 2006 to
develop luxury apartments on council estates in the area, which
failed as a result of strong local campaigning against the proposals.
Analysis carried out by a consultant in 2006 expressed annoyance
at this - something she deemed to be flying in the face of CLG
policy on "mixed communities".
Place based outcomes have been relatively successful
and more people feel happy with the area they live in, but despite
the extra funding and encroaching wealthier incomers/offices/creative
and media base industries on the edges of the NDC area, there
appears to be no change in relation to indicators of deprivation.
The percentage of EC1 New Deal residents in paid
work, (including government schemes and apprenticeships) remains
as it did at the start of the scheme at 49%. Percentages of residents
registered unemployed/not registered but seeking work remains
at 8%. The percentage of residents who are long-term sick or disabled
residents has increased from 5 to 6%. 55% continue to claim some
form of benefit. 19% of residents still have a long-term illness.
All LSOAs in the EC1 New Deal area have shown improvement
in their ranking of deprivation since 2002, but the spread and
spatial distribution of deprivation within the EC1 LSOAs is still
broadly, the same. The situation regarding the number of children
living in poverty has worsened significantly.
A majority of employment in the area is for people
living outside the area (LB Islington evidence base for the Bunhill
and Clerkenwell area action plan) and the cost of local goods
and services has increased significantly.
7.7% of homes are overcrowded. 17.3 live in unsuitable
housing (through overcrowding, special needs or needing repairs).
In 2008 it was estimated that an additional 242 homes are required
per annum, the majority are only able to afford social rented
housing.
Average flat prices in EC1 were £432,433 in
2007, compared to £348,216 in Islington as a whole.
(e) Elephant and Castle regeneration
Plans are for demolition of the 900 homes on the
Heygate estate and for massive new housing developments (some
already built) - but of the 2,000 homes that have been built or
have planning permission at the Elephant and Castle, only 89 (4%)
are social rented.
Most Heygate households have been decanted to other
council homes leaving others languishing even longer on the council
waiting list.
Residents who were decanted have a right to return
to other housing sites, but only one of these is at the Elephant
and Castle. None of the other sites have been built and the 16
sites promised have been reduced to 11. Six sites with 286 replacement
homes have planning permission.
Strata Tower - a 43 storey
"eco"-tower with 408 homes, built over the demolished
Castle House and the old popular Castello's pizzeria. There is
some intermediate housing, but no social-rented homes.
Eileen House - near the
Elephant & Castle tube is due to be demolished and replaced
by a 40+ story tower block. Plans show no social rented units
and only 80 intermediate homes.
360 degrees London - a
44 storey tower with 470 residential units, described by the developers
as "the jewel in the crown" of the Elephant redevelopment.
The whole development was backed by the Government regeneration
agency English Partnerships who had bought the site for £18
million with the express intention of developing affordable homes
for key workers. However, 43 key-worker homes knocked out in the
new plan and market homes will increase from 282 to 319. Only
35 social-rented homes are planned.
(f) Customs House and Canning Town
In Custom House and Canning Town (one of the previous
government's large mixed-tenure regeneration schemes) 1,650 existing
homes are to be demolished with around 10,000 new homes built.
Only 35% are to be "affordable homes" - split 50/50.
In terms of social rented homes this means enough to replace those
planned for demolition and only 100 additional.
Housing demolitions have added to the ever increasing
housing waiting list (which stood at 24,000 in 2007, 28,000 in
2009 and has now reached 36,000 households).
Residents are concerned about the fact that where
flats have been decanted, squatting and sub-letting is occurring
and making the area feel less safe and impacting on residents'
health.
Many from the community have been dispersed and remaining
residents have not been able to retain contact with those who
left (five or six years ago). Those whose homes were demolished
were told they would be the first back - but in reality, some
years on, they have settled elsewhere.
Residents say that all the planned social-rented
housing in this area is to be in high-rise blocks above shops
while the new private housing is to be in smaller blocks with
better views.
Initially the local authority consulted with residents
as a group, but will now only consult with people as individuals,
until they are ready to decant them. Some residents have recently
set up a TMO as they feel this is the only way they will be heard
collectively.
Residents assumed they would move back to council
homes and now understand that this will mean going back as housing
association tenants. They are worried that there will be higher
rents and that many of the promised new affordable homes will
be shared ownership, which existing and decanted residents cannot
afford.
Residents say their existing homes are deteriorating.
They are concerned for elderly and disabled residents who need
accessibility modifications made to their bathrooms to enable
them to use them, but are being refused. They fear that it could
be another 8 years or longer before they are decanted.
From 2006-09 (according to the last three monitoring
reports of the London Plan), of the total 2,905 homes built in
Newham only 544 (19%) were social rented, (while the existing
target is for 35% social rented homes).
Huge numbers of families who are living in overcrowded
homes have to wait for much longer periods of time for suitable
accommodation as decants from demolished housing take priority
- causing additional stress and increased indicators of deprivation.
Between 2004 and 2007 Newham became more deprived
(according to December 2007 Indexes of deprivation), with deprivation
equally spread across the borough and with the two wards of Canning
Town being the third and fourth most deprived wards in London).
Canning Town was featured on a Channel 4 News report after the
recent publication of the National Audit Office showing that the
gap between life expectancy in government-designated areas of
high deprivation and the national average has continued to widen.
(g) Ferrier Estate regeneration, Kidbrooke,
Greenwich
There is significant loss of social rented housing
in the Kidbrooke (Ferrier Estate), regeneration scheme. 1,900
council homes are to be demolished, 4,000 new homes to be built,
- only 1,480 will be affordable and only half will be social rented
(a loss of 1,160 social rented homes).
Of the 2,583 new homes built over the last 3 years
in Greenwich, only 13% (346) are social rented.
(h) Deptford regeneration, Lewisham
Deptford is an "opportunity" area in Lewisham
with plans for large mixed (mostly riverside) developments, which
many local residents feel ignores their needs.
Convoys Wharf - plans
approved in 2005 are to be resubmitted, but are likely to be broadly
the same. Three tower blocks at 40, 32 and 26 are proposed, containing
offices, leisure, cultural, restaurants, cafes, bars and retail
spaces. 3,500 new homes are planned with only 35% "affordable".
Deptford Wharf - plans
are for demolition of existing buildings and construction of 905
flats in blocks from 4 to 18 storeys with only 22% social rented
homes.
Cannon Wharf - approved
plans, subject to possible amendments are for buildings of up
to 23 storeys with a business centre, studio workshop space, a
children's nursery and 756 homes of which 20% are to be social
rented.
Marine Wharf - plans are
for 532 homes only 78 of which (14%) will be social rented and
no other affordable homes.
Local residents say that money obtained from Berkeley
Homes when they took over one of the towers at the Pepy's (council)
estate, is being used to improve green spaces adjacent to the
river - paving the way for new and up-market development, where
the existing community's need is for revenue funding to sustain
local community facilities including a community centre, Sure
Start and youth centre.
5. GRASS EVIDENCE
OF POSITIVE
REGENERATION
(a) Fellows Court Estate has an active tenants
and residents association that has worked on housing and community-based
regeneration projects in partnership with the Hackney Homes, Shoreditch
New Deal Trust and other agencies.
They say that a key element in the success of their
regeneration has been the involvement of and support for the existing
community. They were aware from the start how much money was available;
were allowed time to develop plans for the improvements and security
to their homes (which they led on) and focused much on community
focused projects.
A communal garden area and recycling programme was
developed. Young and old worked on a "Memory Box Exhibition",
capturing elders' memories of life during the war for all to see.
There was, and still is, much focus on the estate's
community centre, which is run by volunteers. It has funding for
youth activities, a mental health user group, classes in: keep
fit, tai-chi, karate, healthy cooking and eating, and art. It
holds bingo sessions a variety of meetings and social activities
and has an estate "restaurant".
(b) Lordship Rec, Haringey. This is Tottenham's
largest but most neglected green space. Improvements and regeneration
of the park are being made through the setting up in 2001 an effective
"Friends Group" and bidding for funding from a variety
of sources including the Lottery. Members suggest this is as a
result of the group involving local tenants and residents, carrying
out their own consultation, campaigning and working with a variety
of organisations including the council.
The group has also taken charge of restoring and
improving the lake area and woodlands, managing notice boards,
publishing leaflets on the history of the park and organising
a range of activities and events.
6. LTF PROPOSALS
LTF feels that there is need to ensure that in all
regeneration schemes are required to address the specific needs
of existing "deprived" communities as determined by
them, in terms of homes, social and community infrastructure and
jobs, rather than the imposition of "redevelopment"
schemes that often not only fails to meet need, but too often
displaces it.
It proposes that there should be a legislative requirement
to carry out social impact assessments to assess the impact of
any regeneration or redevelopment scheme on existing communities;
assessing issues such as displacement and ensuring that regeneration
is not about communities about careful assessment of need and
delivery of homes, social and community infrastructure and jobs
to meet that genuinely meet the needs of communities rather than
the market.
It suggests that money should be allocated to facilitate
training and the building of bottom-up democratic and accountable
tenants and other community organisations to ensure regeneration
is focused on local needs and to ensure cost-effective use of
funding.
It proposes that there should be clarity of process
in regeneration schemes, with existing communities setting out
what they feel their problems to be and how best to resolve them
and transparency around how much funding (including existing budgets)
is available.
March 2011
| 
